














L 
‘ 


1347.9 Sch.R. tS 


THE AVERA 


ection. 


Bible Goll 


+ 


Library of 











LIFE OF OUR LORD 


UPON THE EARTH 


LIFE OF OUR LORD 


UPON THE EARTH 


OONSIDERED IN ITS 


HISTORICAL, CHRONOLOGICAL, AND GEOGRAPHICAL 
RELATIONS 


BY 
SAMUEL J. ANDREWS 


’ AUTHOR OF ‘‘GOD’S REVELATIONS OF HIMSELF TO MEN” 


( 
ae 


’ ANEW AND WHOLLY REVISED EDITION 


“40160 


NEW YORK 
OHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 
1909 





i 





Copyright 1891, by 
SAMUEL J. ANDREWS. 





Sch.R,. 


MY BROTHER, 
WILLIAM WATSON ANDREWS, 
DO 
AND COMPANION OF MY LATER STUDIES, 
THIS BOOK IS 


Aftectionately Re=Mnscribed. 








TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


PAGE. 
PREFACE, A ‘ 4 5 “ : 3 : 3 : v. 
List oF AUTHORS REFERRED TO, ‘5 : = 5.atte 
OUTLINE HARMONY OF THE Gosenis AND OS epepaaasee INDEX, XXi. 
CHRONOLOGICAL Essay, 3 . a : 2 } 


a. Date of Lord’s Birth, . : 4 5 i : : ; 1 
b. Date of Lord’s Baptism, : : < . > : - 21 
c. Date of Lord’s Death, . ‘ 3 “ 2 : oy 


LIFE OF OUR LORD. 
Part I.—From Annunciation to Zacharias to the Baptism 
of Jesus; or from October, 748, to January, 780, 
6 B.C.; A.D. 27, : : 1 
Essay on the Divisions of the Lord’ s Martctey, - 125 
Part  I1.—From the Baptism of Jesus to the First Passover 
of His Ministry; or from January to April, 780; 


ASD 87... Oe ’ : . 139 
Part II.—The Judean Ministry; or fae pal 780, to April, 
781; A.D. 27, 28, é 167 


Part IJV.— From the Imprisonment to the Death of J AS the 
Baptist; or from April, 781, to March, 782; 
A.D. 28, 29, 5 209 
Essay on the Lord’s incurs) in re eatiles u the Death 
of the Baptist. 
Part V.—From the Death of the Baptist to the final depart- 
ure from Galilee; or from April to November, 
782; A.D. 29, . : F 3 : : ae ols 
Essay on the Lord’s Ministry in Galilee from the 
Death of the Baptist till cts close. 
Part VI.—The Last Journey from Galilee, and the Perzan 
Ministry to the arrival at Bethany ; or from No- 
vember, 782, to April, 783; A.D. 29, 30, . . 865 
Essay on the Lord’s Last Journey from Galilee. 
Part VII.—From the arrival at Bethany to the Resurrection; 
or from March 31st (8th Nisan), to April 9th 
(17th Nisan), 788; A.D. 30, ‘ ; 421 
Part VIII. — From the Resurrection to the Ascension, or cron 
Sunday, 9th April (17th Nisan), to ee 


May 18th, 783; A.D. 30, . ‘ - 3 589 
APPENDICES, . : é : : : 5 : : . 641 
Index, . E “ 4 = : i . 645 
Chronological ides 3 - : . . 648 


Passages of Scripture raered to in nthe Eee ry. : : : Pa +13) 


% 
a 





PREFACE. 


Tuts book was published in 1862. That it has con- 
tinued in request for so many years, shows at least 
that it meets a want not otherwise adequately met. 
It has seemed to me, therefore, little less than a duty 
carefully to revise it, and to make it, so faras I am 
able to do, more worthy of the favor it has received. 

In this revision the character of the book has not 
been changed. It deals with the life of the Lord on 
the earth in its chronological, topographical, and his- 
torical relations only. As was said in the original 
preface : ‘“‘It does not design to enter into any questions 
respecting the authorship of the Gospels, the time 
when written, or their relations to each other. Nor 
does it discuss the point of their inspiration, but as- 
sumes that they are genuine historical documents, and 
true statements of facts ; and deals with them as such. 
Nor does it attempt to explain the Lord’s discourses or 
parables, or to discuss questions of mere archeology 
or verbal criticism.” Of course disputed readings, 
when bearing on the special objects of our enquiries, 
have been considered, and for comparison with the 
textus receptus the text of Tischendorf and that of 
Westcott and Hort have been used, with occasional 
reference to the readings preferred by Meyer, Alford, 
Keil, and others. Whenever the translation in the 
Revised Version seemed to give light, it has been 


(v) 


vi PREFACE, 


quoted. No reference is made to any Greek manu- 
scripts, as unnecessary to those who use the Greek 
Testament, and useless to those who do not. 

I am not at all confident that I have always kept 
within the limits which my purpose prescribes. The 
line between the historical and the archeological is 
not always plain, aud doubtless some readers will seek 
here information which properly belongs to commen- 
taries and Bible dictionaries. 

The last thirty years have added much to our 
knowledge of the Holy Land, especially through the 
explorations of the Palestine Exploration Fund Society 
and the English Ordnance Surveys. Of these constant 
use has been made. But it remains true that with all 
the recent investigations, the sites of many places 
mentioned in the Gospels are almost as undetermined 
as ever. This may be said of Bethabara, Bethsaida, 
Enon, Capernaum, Cana, Emmaus, Golgotha—all are 
still in dispute. If those who have made the topogra- 
phy of the Gospels their special study were agreed as 
to results, we could readily accept them; but as the 
most diligent and learned explorers differ, we are 
forced to take to our help the statements of others 
more or less competent — geographers and travellers 
—and so arrive at a probable conclusion. Not afew 
may think some of the topographical discussions un- 
necessarily long, and ask of what real importance is 
it whether Capernaum was one side of the Sea of 
Galilee or the other, whether the Lord was transfigured 
at Tabor or at Hermon? Renan asks: ‘‘ How does it 
concern us that Jesus was born in such or such a vil- 
lage, that he had such or such ancestors, that he suf- 
fered on such or such a day of the holy week ?” We 


PREFACE. vii 


answer that these particulars are not unimportaui ir 
the life of Jesus, for they prove the reality of His 
earthly history. Time and place are essential parts of 
the great fact of the Incarnation. The Son of God, 
in becoming man, must be born at a certain period of 
the world’s history, in a certain portion of its territory, 
and stand in well-defined relations to certain of its 
inhabitants. Such limitations belong to the very es- 
sense of His humanity. These outward facts the 
Evangelists do not overlook. It is true that they do 
not enter into any great minuteness of detail. Of the 
external events of the Lord’s life for many years we 
know very little. Yet they do not neglect those rela- 
tions of time and place which are necessary to con- 
vince us of the reality of His earthly existence, and to 
give us a distinct picture of His labors. 

Again, if the elements of time and place are 
stricken from the Gospels, the Lord’s life ceases to be 
a truly human and intelligible one ; He becomes only 
a wandering Voice. The more fully we know the out- 
ward circumstances of His life, and His relations to 
those around him, the more do His words gain in sig- 
nificance, and attest His discernment and wisdom. 
Thus it is of importance to know, so far as we are 
able, both the times and the places of His utterances ; 
and the labor spent in this study is not idle, but will 
yield rich reward. 

The present book differs from the original in put- 
ting the longer discussions into small type. This is a 
gain as to space, and also permits those who are not 
interested in them to pass them by. In this I have 
had regard to those—Sunday-school teachers and 
others who are intelligent students of the Gospels, but 


viii PREFACE. 


not scholars — who wish results rather than processes. 
For them, what is said in the headings and the larger 
type will generally suffice. But there are others, edu- 
cated laymen and theological students —perhaps I 
may venture to add clergymen— who wish to have 
. some full statement of the latest phases of the ques- 
tions discussed, and references to the chief modern 
writers upon them ; and for them these statements are 
made. They are not exhaustive, much is not said that 
might have been said ; but they present the means for 
inquirers to carry their investigations further. 

In regard to references to other books and writers, 
a few words may be said. The grounds on which they 
are made are these: To enable the reader to verify 
the statements of his author; to furnish him the 
means of further pursuing his inquiries; to show by 
enumeration of names where the weight of authority 
lies ; and incidentally to indicate if any writer of im- 
portance has been neglected. We may err here either 
on the side of excess or defect; perhaps many will 
think I have erred in the former way. But those who 
know how much time is wasted in hunting for pas- 
sages where references are scanty, will pardon me. 

I think it right for me to say, that very rarely is 
any reference made at second-hand. That I have not 
always hit a writer’s meaning is very likely, and there 
will certainly be some mistakes, clerical or other ; but 
I hope that in general the references will be found 
accurate. That I refer for the most part only to the 
more recent writers, lies in the purpose of the book to 
notice the latest results of criticism and investiga- 
tion. Of course, some notice has been taken of the 
older and prominent writers in this department, as 


PREFACE. ix 


Lightfoot, Lardner, Reland, but the list of books added 
will show that chief attention has been given to the 
most recent authors. 

Meyer and others often speak disparagingly of 
“‘harmonistic expedients,” and of forcing the differing 
narratives of the Evangelists into harmony with one 
another. But is there any consistent history which is | 
not the result of harmonisti l ? The dis- 
cordant statements of credible but independent wit- 


nesses are studie ared, that from them a 
full and_harmonious record may be made. This is 
a 


true also in its measure of every biography. Why is 
not the same rule to be applied to the Gospels? If 
there are found in them statements of facts directly 
contradictory, truth demands that we frankly ac- 
knowledge them ; but if discrepancies only are found, 
it is perfectly warrantable that we attempt to recon- 
cile them by probable suppositions. 

That all will find the solutions of alleged discrepan- 
cies and contradictions here given satisfactory, is not 
to be expected. Nor will the chronological order, or 
topographical results, be received by all. But it is a 
great point gained, to be able to see just what the 
amount of the discrepancy or contradiction, if it really 


exists, is. Those readers who have been accustomed 
to hear, through skeptical critics, of_t ous 


errors and mistakes of the Evangelists, will be_sur- 
prised to learn how few are the _ poi iffi- 


culty, and how the 
misunderstanding of the critic hi . There are not 


a few commentators who adopt the rigid literalism of 
Osiander, not like him to defend the credibility of the 
Gospel narrative, but to destroy it. 


x PREFACE. 


There are certain portions of the Gospels whose 
genuineness is questioned, as Mark xvi. 9-20, John 
xxi. In regard to the first, which is bracketed by 
Westcott and Hort, but retained in the Revised Ver- 
sion, it is here accepted as true, but as possibly added 
at a later period. It is marked as an appendix. In 
regard to the second, it is accepted as genuine. The 
account of the adulterous woman, John vii. 53-viii. 
11, is bracketed in the Revised Version (bracketed also 
by Westcott and Hort, and transposed). Its omission 
does not affect the general narrative. 

I repeat what was said in the early Preface: “It 
will not be expected that I should present, upon a sub- 
ject discussed for so many centuries by the best minds 
of the Church, anything distinctively new. Still, I 
trust that some points have been set in clearer light, 
and that the general arrangement will facilitate the 
inquiries of those who seek to know as much as is pos- 
sible of the external history of the Lord’s works and 
words, that they may the better penetrate into their 
spiritual meaning. I have given considerable promi- 
nence to the great divisions of His work, first in Ju- 
dzea, and then in Galilee, and to the character of His 
last journey to Jerusalem, and to the accounts of the 
resurrection and of His acts after it, both as explain- 
ing some péculiarities in the synoptical Gospels, and 
as showing that His work was carried on under true 
historic conditions. There is no fact more important 
to be kept clearly in mind in these studies than this, 
that Jesus was very man no less than very God. 
While recognizing the supernatural elements in the 
evangelic narratives wherever they exist, we are not 
so to introduce them as to make these narratives the 


PREFACE. x] 


records of a life neither human nor divine. The Lord, 
in all his words and works, in His conduct toward the 
Jews, and His repeated efforts to make them hear and 
receive Him, acted as man, under those laws which 
God at the beginning established to guide human 
action. His life on earth was in the highest sense a 
human one, and it is this fact that gives us the key to 
the Gospels as real historic records.” 

I am happy here to acknowledge my obligations to 
several friends who have taken an interest in this 
revision, and have helped me in various ways: to 
Professor KE. C. Richardson, former Librarian of the 
Hartford Theological Seminary, (now of Princeton,) 
for the free use of its books; also to the present Libra- 
rian, Professor A. T. Perry —himself the author of a 
Harmony —to whom I owe the Synopsis at the begin- 
ing of this book; ani to Professor A. C. Zenos for 
corrections of proof. To my old friends, Dr. Samuel 
Hart of Trinity College, and Professor John H. Bar- 
bour of the Berkeley Divinity School, I am indebted 
for most valuable assistance, not only in the read- 
ing of the proof, and in critical suggestions, but for 
some original contributions which are acknowledged 
in their proper places. I would add my thanks also 
to my younger friends, Mr. E. EK. Nourse and Mr. C. 
Hazen, theological students, for their aid; a useful 
paper by Mr. N. will be found in the Appendix. 

I cannot conclude this Preface without expressing 
my hope that this attempt to set forth the main events 
in the Lord’s life on earth will always be read in the 
light of the great fact that He ‘‘ who was dead is alive 
again forevermore.” His life on earth and His labors 
here were but the initial stage of His work; and if 


xfi PREFACE. 


questions arise in regard to them which we are not 
able to answer, these are of very little importance 
when we remember that He IS. In Him, as the Ever- 
living One, not in the Gospel records, Christianity 
lives. In the light of His present glory how trivial 
does much of the modern Gospel criticism appear! 
In studying His earthly life we have always need to 
keep in mind the Apostle’s words: “Though we 
have known Christ after the flesh, yet now hence- 
forth know we Him no more.” Our communion is 
with Him as the immortal and glorified Lord. 

Again, after so many years, and witha deeper sense 
of its truth, I say : ‘‘ How poor and unworthy of Him, 
the external aspects of whose earthly life I have en- 
deavored in some points to portray, my labors are, 
none can feel more deeply than myself. I can only 
pray that His blessing — the blessing that changed 
the water into wine—may go with this book, and 
make it, in some measure, useful to His children.” 


HARTFORD, Conn., Aug. 1, 1891. 


PREFACE TO REVISED EDITION 


Since the last revision of this book several lives of 
Christ have appeared, and a number of monographs 
and articles bearing on the subjects here specially 
treated of; I have therefore added these, so far as 
known to me, in an addendum to the former list of 
authors and books, mentioning particularly those pre- 
senting anything distinctively new. 

With the development of the modern critical meth- 
ods and their application to the Gospels, the belief in 
their unity has been much affected ; and the diversity 
of judgments as to the events of the Lord’s life and 
their order largely increased. 

Aside from questions as to the text and the author- 
ship and time of composition, there is emphasized by 
many the uncertainty whether we have the Lord’s 
words as He spake them or as modified by the Evan- 
gelists, thus leaving the reader to put into the Lord’s 
mouth what he thinks He might or ought to have 
said. 

The absence of any authoritative standard of judg- 
ment, leaving the critic free to bring all points, even 
those which have long been regarded as settled, before 
his bar, and to reject all statements which do not 


commend themselves to him, necessarily leads to con- 
xiii 


xiv PREFACE TO REVISED EDITION. 


fusion, and often to contradictory conclusions. This 
is seen especially in the field of chronology. There is 
no agreement as to the length of the Lord’s public 
ministry, or as to the data on which a sure judgment 
can rest. One affirms that no Gospel follows a chrono- 
logical order; another selects a single Gospel, and to 
its order all the rest are forced to conform; and an- 
other finds that a later Evangelist corrects the errors 
of an earlier. Not a few deny that it is possible to 
harmonize by any corrections the conflicting state- 
ments. 

It seems to be accepted as a postulate of much 
recent criticism, that each Evangelist, not being crit- 
ically trained, must be more or less wrong, and that 
it is the business of the critic to set him right. 

To this we may add that the most advanced critics, 
denying to the Lord any Divine commission, get rid 
of His miracles, and reduce His words to their mini- 
mum of meaning. 

The general result upon the reader of this liberty 
to pick and choose, and the consequent diversity of 
judgments, is that anything like certainty as to many 
events in the Lord’s life, and their order, is unob- 
tainable; and this uncertainty extends also to His 
teachings. * 

Thus the New Testament becomes like the vineyard 
of the prophet, ‘‘the hedge taken away, the wall 

* We are told by the editors of the ‘‘ Encyclopedia Biblica,” now in 
process of publication, and the latest representative of the most advanced 
criticism, that ‘‘ unfortunately the literary and historical criticism of the 
New Testament is by no means so far advanced as that of the Old ; fora 
real history of the movement of religious life and thought in the New 
Testament period we shall have to wait. As we are unable to check the 
evangelistic statements, we can treat them only as hypotheses.” All the 


lives of Jesus hitherto written are thus hypothetical; the certainty is to 
come with the era of ‘ philosophically purified thought.” 


PREFACE TO REVISED EDITION. xv 


broken down, so that all who pass by the way do 
pluck her.”’ 

A single remark may be made here. It is obvious 
that our understanding of the life of any one—of his 
words and works—must be conditioned by the sphere 
of that life and its purpose. If Jesus was the Son of 
God, who was made man that He might be the Saviour 
of the world, His life, like His person, must have had 
a wholly distinctive character, and His words and 
works must be interpreted in accordance with it. 

To reduce that life to the level of a mere human life, 
makes any right interpretation of it impossible. As 
His person, so His words and works were unique. 

In reading much of the recent criticism the Chris- 
tian believer will first ask as to the belief of the critic ; 
for if the critic believes Jesus to have beena mere man, 
even if prophetically inspired, his standard of judg- 
ment as regards the Gospel records must be far unlike 
his who believes Him to have been the Incarnate Son. 

Upon all who believe that Jesus is the Son of the 
Virgin, very God and very man, now exalted to the 
right hand of the Father, and having all power in 
heaven and in earth, the boldness with which not a 
few critics attack the truthfulness of the Gospels, and 
find them full of legends and mistakes, will produce 
little effect. They will read the past in the light of 
the present, the earthly in the light of the heavenly, 
and find good ground for belief that the coming years 
will but confirm and illumine the records of His 
earthly life, and add to their deep significance. 

Several of the more recent writers upon the chro- 
nology of the public ministry of the Lord reduce the 
time to two years and a half. This isdone by making 
the Judzan ministry of very brief duration. But 


xvi PREFACE TO REVISED EDITION. 


when we consider the great importance of this period 
of National trial, ending in the rejection of Him as 
the Messiah, it is plain that it demanded a consider- 
able interval of time in order that He might fully tes- 
tify to His Messianic claims, and that the rulers and 
people in His rejection might act with full knowledge 
of the character of their action. 

I wish to add my thanks to Professor E. E. Nourse, 
of the Hartford Theological Seminary, for his valu- 
able aid. 


Hartrorp, Conn. 
April 20, 1900. 


LIST OF AUTHORS REFERRED TO. 


In THE first edition of this book a list was given of the authors 
referred to, and the titles of their works. To the original list I add 
the more recent writers, indicating them by an asterisk. I have for 
the sake of brevity referred rather to names than to titles, except in 
cases of two or more books by the same writer, when the titles are 
given. 


*AppoTt, Lyman, Jesus of Nazareth. New York, 1869. 

*AupRICH, J. K., The Day of Our Saviour’s Crucifixion. Boston, 
1882. 

ALEXANDER, J. A., Commentary upon Matthew and Mark. New 
York. 1858-1861. 

A.rorp, H., The Greek Testament, vol. I., containing the Four Gos- 
pels. New York, 1859. 


Barvexer, K., Palestine and Syria. A Handbook. Leipzig, 1876. 

Bancuiay, J. T., City of the Great King. Philadelphia, 1858. 

*BARTLETT, S. C., From Egypt to Palestine. New York, 1879. 

*BAUMLEIN, W., Commentar a. d. Evangelium des Johannes. Stutt- 
gart, 1863. 

BauMGARTEN, M., Die Geschichte Jesu. Braunschweig, 1859. 

*BrEcHER, H. W., The Life of Jesus, the Christ. New York, 1871. 

*BEYSCHLAG, W., Leben Jesu. Halle, 1887. 

BLEEK, F.., Beitrage zur Evangelien Kritik. Berlin, 1846. 
re Synoptische Erklarung der dreiersten Evangelien. Leip- 
zig, 1862. 

BLOOMFIELD, 8S. T., Greek Testament with English Notes. Boston, 
1837. 

*Bovet, F., Egypt and Palestine. Stuttgart, 1863. Trans. 

Browne, H., Ordo Seclorum. London, 1844. 

Bucuer, J., Das Leben Jesu Christi. Stuttgart, 1859. 

< Ye Die Chronologie des Neuen Testamentes. Augsburg, 
1865. 


*Casparti, C. E., Chronological and Geographical Introduction to the 
Life of Christ. Trans. Edinburgh, 1876. 


xviii LIST OF AUTHORS REFERRED TO, 


Curnton, Henry F., Fasti Romani. Oxford, 1845-1850. 

*ConEN, J, Les Deicides. Paris, 1864. 

*CoLANI, T., Jesus Christ. Strasbourg, 1864. 

*ConpeR, F. R. and C. R., Handbook of the Bible. London, 1882. 
*ConDER, C. R., Tent Work in Palestine. New York, 1878, 


*Dawson, J. W., Egypt and Syria. London, 1885. 

De Cosra, I., The Four Witnesses. New York, 1855. 

*De PressENsE, E., Jesus Christ: His Times, Life, and Work. 
Trans. New York, 1868. 

De Saucy, Dead Sea and Bible Lands, Trans. London, 1854. 

*DERENBOURG, J., Histoire de la Palestine. Paris, 1867. 

*DoLiinceER, J. J., Christenthum und Kirche. Regensburg, 1868. 


Eprarp, J. H. A., Wissenschaftliche Kritik der Evangelischen 
Geschichte. Erlangen, 1850. Dritte Auflage, 1868. 
*EDERSHEIM, A., The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 5th ed., 


New York. 
* 2: The Temple and its Ministers. American Edition. 
* es Sketches of Jewish Social Life. < . 
Eu.icot7, C. J., Historical Lectures on the Life of Our Lord. Lon- 


don, 1860. 
Ewan, H., Drei ersten Evangelien. Gottingen, 1850. 
e Die Alterthiimer des Volkes Israel. Gottingen, 1854. 
“ Geschichte Christus und seiner Zeit. Gottingen, 1857. 


Farrparrn, P., Hermeneutical Manual. Philadelphia, 1859. 
*Farrak, F. W., The Life of Christ. Illustrated. London, 1874. 
FrRIzpuies, J. H., Archiologie der Leidensgeschichte. Bonn, 1843. 


ce ‘¢ Geschichte des Lebens Jesu Christi. Breslau, 
1855. 
ee gre’ ‘¢ Das Leben Jesu Christi. Minster, 1887. 
ao hall ‘¢  Quatuor Evangelia Sacra in Harmoniam Redacta. 


Ratisbon, 1869. 
Furr, J. M., Harmony of the Four Gospels. London, 1888. 


Gams, Johannes der Taufer. Tiibingen, 18538. 

*GARDINER, F., Harmony of the Four Gospels. Andover, 1885. 

*GEIKIE, C., Life and Words of Christ. New York, 1880. 

*GERLACH, H., Die Rémischen Statthalter in Syrien und Judea. 
Berlin, 1865. 

*GRENVILLE, H., Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels. Lon- 


don, 1866. 
GREENLEAF, S., Testimony of the Evangelists. Boston, 1846. 


LIST OF AUTHORS REFERRED TO. DABS 


GRESWELL, E., Dissertations upon the Principles of an Harmony of 
the Gospels. Oxford, 1837. 
ce Harmonia Evangelica. 1855. 


Hackett, H. B., Illustrations of Scripture. Boston, 1857. 

*Hanna, W., Life of Our Lord. New York, 1873. 

*HausratH, A., Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte. Erster Theil. 
Heidelberg, 1868. 

*HenpDERSON, A., Palestine. Edinburgh. 

Hormann, R., Das Leben Jesu nach den Apokryphen. Leipzig, 1851. 

Hue, J. L., Introduction to New Testament. Trans. Andover, 1836. 


IDELER, C., Handbuch der Mathematischen und Technischen Chro- 
nologie. Berlin, 1825-1826. 

‘ImmeR, A., Hermeneutics. Trans. Andover, 1877. 

It1neRA Hierosolymitana, Tobler et Molonier. Geneva, 1879. 


Jarvis, S. F., A Chronological Introduction to the History of the 
Church. New York, 1845. 
Jonss, J., Notes on Scripture. Philadelphia, 1861. 


*Keim, T., Jesu von Nazara. Zurich, 1872. 

Kirtto, J., Life of Our Lord. New York, 1853. 

Krarrt, C. H. A., Chronologie und Harmonie der vier Evangelien. 
Erlangen, 1848. 


Lance, J. P., Leben Jesu. Heidelberg, 1847. 
ae ‘¢ Bibel Werk: Matthaus, Markus, Johannes. Bielefeld, 
1857-1860. 
uc «¢ Life of Christ. Trans. Edinburgh, 1872. 
*LANGEN, J., Die letzten Lebenstage Jesu. Freiburg, 1864. 
es Das Judenthum in Palastina zur Zeit Christi. 1866. 
*LAURENT, J. M., Neutestamentliche Studien. Gotha, 1866. 
*Lipstus, R. A., DieApokryphen Apostelgeschichten. Braunschwieg, 
1884. 
Lewin, THomas, Jerusalem. London, 1861. 
Te ae Fasti Sacri. London, 1865. 
*Lewis, T. H., The Holy Places of Jerusalem. London, 1888. 
LICHTENSTEIN, F. W. J., Lebensgeschichte des Herrn. Erlangen, 
1856. 
Lyncu, W. F., Exploration of the Jordan and Dead Sea. Philadel 
phia, 1849. 


*McCLEeLuan, J. B., The New Testament, vol. I. London, 1875. 


XX LIST OF AUTHORS REFERRED TO. 


*MerriL1, §., Galilee in Time of Christ. 1881. 

bs et East of the Jordan. New York, 1881. 

Messtaun, THe. London, 1861. 

Meyer, H. A. W., Commentar. Die Evangelien. Gottingen, 1855 
1858. 

Mitu, W. H., The Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels. Cam 
bridge, 1861. 

Muman, H. H., History of Christianity. New York, 1841. 

Morison, J. H., Notes on Matthew. Boston, 1860. 

*Morrison, W. D., The Jews under Roman Rule. New York, 1890. 

*MoMMSEN, P., Provinces of the Roman Empire. Trans. 1887. 


NeEanvDeER, A., The Life of Jesus Christ. Trans. New York, 1848. 

*NesE, A., Das Leidensgeschichte. Wiesbaden, 1881. 

Pee Das Auferstehungsgeschichte, 1881-1882. 

*NEUBAUER, A., La Geographie du Talmud. Paris, 1868. 

Newcomer, Bishop, Harmony of the Gospels, edited by Robinson. 
Andover, 1834. 

*Norris, J. P., Key to the Gospel Narratives. London, 1887. 

Norton, A., Translation of the Gospels with Notes. Boston, 1856. 


OosTERZEE, J. J., Bibel Werk: Lukas. Bielefeld, 1859. 

Oszorne, H. 8., Palestine, Past and Present. Philadelphia, 1859. 

Owen, J. J., Commentaries on Matthew, Mark, and Luke. New 
York, 1858-1861. 


Parritius, F. X., De Evangeliis: Friburgi, 1853. 
Pautus, H. E. G., Das Leben Jesu. Heidelberg, 1828. 
‘ Exegetisches Handbuch, tiber die drei ersten 
Evangelien. Heidelberg, 1842. 
‘Perry, A. T., Harmony of the Gospels. Boston, 1890. 
Porter, J. L., Handbook for Syria and Palestine. London, 1858. 
*Pounp, W., The Story of the Gospels, vol. II. London, 1869. 
*Pieritz, G. W., The Gospels from the Rabbinical Point of View. 
London, 1873. 


*Quanpt, L., Chronologische-geographische Beitrige. Gutersloh, 
1872. 


RavuMER, Karu von, Paliistina. Leipzig, 1850. 

RicGensacn, C. J., Leben Jesu. Basel, 1858. 

RirrerR, Cart, Die Erdkunde yon Asien. Band viii. 15er u. 16e 
Theile. 


LIST OF AUTHORS REFERRED TO. xxi 


Rogrnson, E., Biblical Researches in Syria and Palestine. Boston, 


1856. 3 vols. 
f Harmony of the Gospels. Boston, 1845. 
* as Harmony with additional Notes by M. B. Riddle. 


Boston, 1885. 


*SaLmon, G., Historical Introduction to the Books of the New Testa- 
ment. London, 1886. 

*Scmarr, P, Through Bible Lands. New York, 1880. 

ScuarrTerR, A., Der ichte Lage des Heiligen Grabes. Berne, 1849. 

*SCHNECKENBURGER, M., Vorlesungen tber Neutestamentliche Zeit- 
geschichte. Frankfurt am Main, 1862. 

*ScHuURER, E., The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ. 
Trans. Edinburgh, 1890. 

ScHwartTz, J., Geography of Palestine. Philadelphia, 1850. 

*ScryMGEOuR, W., Lessons on the Life of Jesus. Edinburgh, 1888. 

Sepp, J. N., Das Leben Jesu. Regensburg, 1853-1862. 

* $ Jerusalem and das Heilige Land. Schaffhausen, 1863. 

* ae Kritische Beitrage zum Leben Jesu. Miinchen, 1890. 

*Srevin, H., Chronologie des Lebens Jesu. Tubingen, 1874. 

STanuey, A. P., Sinai and Palestine. New York, 1857. 

*STALKER, J., The Life of Jesus Christ. Edinburgh, 1880. 

*STapFeR, E., Palestine in the Time of Christ. Trans. New York. 

*STEINMEYER, F’. L., History of the Passion and Resurrection of our 
Lord. Trans. 1879. 

Stewart, R. W., Tent and Khan. Edinburgh, 1857. 

StreR, R., The Words of the Lord Jesus. Trans. Edinburgh, 1855. 

StrRonG, JAMES, Greek Harmony of the Gospels. New York, 1854. 

Stroup, W., Physical Cause of the Death of Christ. London, 1847. 

- Greek Harmony of the Gospels, 1853. 


TuierscH, H. W. J., Versuch fiir die Kritik N. T. Erlangen, 1845. 
Tui1o, J. C., Codex Apocryphus, vol. I. Leipsic, 1832. 
THoLuck, Commentary on St. John. Trans. Philadelphia, 1859. 
Tuomson, W. M., Land and Book. New York, 1859. 
eae ict #6 The Land and the Book. New edition, 3 vols. 
New York. 
TISCHENDORF, C., Synopsis Evangelica. Lipsie, 1854. New Ed, 
1878. 
ToBLER, T., Bethlehem. Gallen u. Berne, 1849. 
sf Golgotha. Seine Kirchen u. Kloster. Berne, 1851. 
es Die Siloahquelle u. der Oélberg. St. Gallen, 1852. 
ss Topographie von Jerusalem. Berlin, 1853. 


xxii LIST OF AUTHORS REFERRED TO, 


Toster, T., Denkbliatter aus Jerusalem. Constanz, 1856. 
By Dritte Wanderung nach Palastina. Gotha, 1859. 
TownsEnpD, G., The New Testament, arranged in Historical and 
Chronological Order. Revised by T. W. Coit. Boston, 1837. 
*Trencu, Archbishop, Studies in the Gospels. New York, 1867. 
*TRISTRAM, H., Bible Places, London, 1874. 
‘¢ ef Land of Israel. London, 


*Upuam, F. W., The Wise Men. New York, 1871. 
“ ag Thoughts on the Holy Gospels. New York, 1881. 


VAN DER VELDE, C. W. M., Journey through Syria and Palestine. 

Trans. Edinburgh, 1854. 
“ = as Memoir to accompany Map of the Holy 

Land. Gotha, 1858. 

*Van LENNEP, H., Bible Lands. New York, 1875. 

*VaLuines, J. F., Jesus Christ, the Divine Man. New York. 

*VoLKMAR, G., Jesus Nazarenus: Zurich, 1882. 

*Vicourovux, F., Le Nouveau Testament. Paris, 1890. 


*Weiss, B., The Life of Christ. Trans. Edinburgh, 1884. 

*WEITBRECHT, G., Das Leben Jesu. Stuttgart, 1881. 

Wesrcort, B. F., Introduction to Study of the Gospels. London, 
1860. 

WicHELHAUS, J., Geschichte des Leidens Jesu Christi. Halle, 1855. 

WIESELER, K., Synopse der vier Evangelien. Hamburg, 1843. 

= sf Beitrige zur richtigen Wurdigung der Evangelien. 

Gotha, 1869. 

Wiiuiams, G., The Holy City. London, 1849. 

Wituiams, I., Narrative of Our Lord’s Nativity. London, 1844 

Witson, J., Lands of the Bible. Edinburgh, 1847. 

Winer, G. B., Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms. 
Leipzig, 1855. Trans. Andover, 1889. 

*WoorsEy, T. D., Historical Credibility of Luke ii. 1-5. New Eng 

lander, 1869. 
* “ Year of Christ’s Birth. Bibliotheca Sacra, 1870. 
Wrieut, T., Early Travels in Palestine. London, 1848. 


*ZOECKLER, O., The Cross of Christ. Trans. London, 1877. 
*Zumpt, A. W., Das Geburtsjahr Christi. Leipzig, 1869. 


Frequent references are made to the valuable articles in the 
Cyclopdias and Bible Dictionaries. 


LIST OF AUTHORS REFERRED TO. XXlil 


Encyklopiadie fiir Protestantische Theologie und Kirche, von Herzog, 
Hamburg, 1854-1862. Neue Auflage, Leipzig, 1877-1888. 

Kirchen Lexicon, oder Encyklopadie der Katholische Theologie, von 
Wetzer und Welte, Friburg, 1847-1857. 

Realworterbuch von G. W. Winer, Leipzig, 1847. 

Encyclopédie des Sciences Religeuses. Lichtenberger. Paris, 1881. 

Real-Encyclopadie fir Bibel und Talmud. J. Hamburger, 1884. 

Bibel Lexicon, von Schenkel. 1869-1875. 

Handworterbuch des Biblischen Alterthums, von Riehm, Bielefeld, 
1884. 

Schaff-Herzog, Encyclopedia. New York. 1883. 

Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, 
McClintock & Strong. ,New York, 1874. 

Imperial Bible Dict. Fairbairn. London, 1866. 

Kitto’s Cyclopedia, edited by Alexander. 1862. 

Smith’s Dict. of the Bible. London, 1863. 

American Revised Ed. Boston, 1879. 


Publications of the Palestine Exploration Fund : 
Recovery of Jerusalem. New York, 1871. 
Our Work in Palestine. New York, 1873. 
Twenty-one Years Work in the Holy Land. London, 1886. 
Quarterly Statements, 1869-91. 
Survey of Western Palestine, 1881-83. 


Bible Educator, edited by E. H. Plumptre. 

Picturesque Palestine. New York, 1878-81. 

Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina Verein. 1879-1891. 

The recent Commentaries of Keil, Godet, Lindsay, Milligan and 
Moulton, Westcott, Luthardt, Rice, Watkins, Riddle, Plumptre, 
Schaff, Lutteroth; and Monographs of Schirer, Roth, Rédpe, 
Rosch, Muller, Payne, Merrill, Woolsey, Stevens, and others. 


Most of the abbreviations of names and titles are obvious. We 
give a few which seem to need explanation. 
Grimm’s Greek Lexicon translated and revised by Dr. Thayer — T. &. 

Lex. 

Commentary on John, by Dr. Milligan and Dr. Moulton — M. and M. 
Greek New Testament, by Westcott and Hort — W. and H. 
Authorized Version— A. V. 
Revised Version —R. V. 





ADDENDUM 


Besant, W., and Paumer, G. H., Jerusalem, fourth edition, en- 
larged. 1899. 

Briaes, CHarues, Messiah of the Gospels. New York, 1898. 

ButuEr’s Bible Work, vol. V., New Testament. New York, 1894. 

Dmon, Rev. Father, Jesus Christ. From the French. 2 vols., Phila- 
delphia, 1897. 

Fouarp, ApB& ConstTaNntTINE, The Christ, the Son of God. From the 
French. London, 1890. 

Fuuierton, K., The Critical and Chronological Table of the Gos- 
pels. 1898. 

GinpErt, GrorcEe H., The Student’s Life of Jesus. Chicago, 1896. 

Gopet, F., Introduction to the New Testament, 2d Part. Trans. 

Hopes, R. M., Historical Atlas and Chronology of the Life of Jesus 
Christ. Nashville, 1899. 

Hourzmann, Neuetestamentliche Zeitgeschichte. Freiburg, 1895. 

Innes, A. T., The Trial of Jesus Christ. Edinburgh, 1899. 

‘‘TLayman” (R. Bird), Jesus, the Carpenter of Nazareth. London, 
1892. 

Mao Coon, T., The Holy Land in Geography and History. 2 vols., 

= 1897: 

Matuews, SHauer, History of New Testament Times in Palestine. 
New York, 1899. 

Puetes, Enizasets S., The Story of Jesus Christ. Boston, 1899. 

Ramsay, Wiu1amM M., Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? New York, 
1898. 

Ruzis, Rusu, The Life of Jesus of Nazareth. New York, 1900. 

Riaes, J. S., A History of the Jewish People; Maccabzean and Ro- 
man Periods. New York, 1900. 

Roars, A. K., Life and Teachings of Jesus. New York, 1895. 

Sanpay, W., Article, Jesus Christ, in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary. 
New York, 1899. 

Sent, H. T., Bible Studies by Periods. Part V. 1899. 

Smit, G. A., Historical Geography of the Holy Land. New York, 
1895. 


xxvl ADDENDUM. 


Sooty, A (Baedeker, Handbook of Palestine). 1898. 

SrauKer, J., The Trial and Death of Jesus Christ. New York, 1894. 

Sraprer, Epmunp, Life of Jesus, 3 parts. From the French. New 
York, 1896. 

Srevens, W. A., and Burton, E. D., Harmony of the Gospels for 
Historical Study. Boston, 1894. 

Stewart, R. L., The Land of Israel. 1899. 

Tuomas, Margaret, Two Years in Palestine and Syria. London, 
1900. 

Turner, C. H., Article, Chronology of the New Testament, in Has- 
tings’ Bible Dictionary. New York, 1899. 

Von Sopen, Prof., Article, Chronology of the New Testament, in 
Encyclopedia Biblica. London, 1899. 

Waker, N. L., Jesus Christ and His Surroundings. 1899. 

Wauuacez, E. S., Jerusalem the Holy. New York, 1898. 

Wricut, A., Some New Testament Problems. London, 1898. 

Zaun, T., Hinleitung in das Neue Testament, vol. II., Excursus 2. 
Leipzig, 1899. 

Bible Dictionaries. 

Davis, J. A., A Dictionary of the Bible. Philadelphia, 1898. 

Encyclopedia Biblica. Editors, Cheyne and Black. Vol. I. Lon- 
don, 1899. 

Hastines, J., Bible Dictionary, vols. I. and II. New York, 1899. 

Ssmirn, Wiutram, Dictionary of the Bible, second edition, vol. I. 


London, 1893. 
BarvDEKER’s Palestine and Syria. 1898. 


Periodicals, 
Biblical World, vol. 1890-1900. 


Expositor, vol. 1890-1900. 
Quarterly Statements, vol. 1890-1899. 


HISTORY 


Tue book of Prof. Ramsay, ‘‘ Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?” 
deserves special mention because it gives a new datum for our his- 
- torical investigations. 

Prof. Ramsay affirms that Luke in his statement on the taxing, 
ii. 1-4, was acquainted with a system of periodic enrolments in 


ADDENDUM. XXVii 


Syria, and probably in the Hast generally, and was not speaking 
at random. A very brief outline of Prof. Ramsay’s discussion will 
be given here. 

Prof. Ramsay translates the words, Luke ii. 2, “that all the 
world should be taxed,” to mean the Roman world, including the 
dependent kingdoms, as that of Herod. The later clause, ‘‘should 
be taxed” or enrolled, affirms that ‘‘ Augustus now ordered enrol- 
ments to be regularly made,” not the taking of a single census. 
Luke’s statement will therefore read: ‘‘ This was the first enrol- 
ment ”—the first in a series of enrolments, and the only one with 
which he was here concerned. It was in force in Syria, and was 
periodic. This first census he distinguishes from that in Acts v. 
37, by the use of the article applied to the last, ‘‘ The census,” 7.e., 
that taken about 7 A. D., when Judza had become part of the proy- 
ince of Syria, and which was to serve as the basis of taxation. 

The light cast upon this matter comes from Egypt through the 
discovery that periodic enrolments for the purpose of numbering 
the people were made under the Roman rule. ‘‘ The census was 
carried on by Roman officials, and formed part of the Imperial sys- 
tem of administration.” The same Greek term, droypady, is used 
in the Egyptian documents. Prof. Ramsay thinks that Augustus 
was ‘“‘the originator of a new system in Egypt of periodic enrol- 
ments by households, developing some previously existing system 
of numbering the population.” This, like our own census, is to be 
distinguished from an enrolment for the purpose of taxation, such 
as was made by Quirinius 7 A.D. Both existed in Egypt, but only 
the first, the enrolment as a basis for the enumeration of the total 
population, corresponds to that mentioned by Luke, and such an 
enumeration was general throughout the Roman Empire. That the 
cycle of enrolments was in force as early as 20 A.D., is shown by 
the recently found papyri. 

A second point is the relation of the taxing to Cyrenius (Quiri- 
nius). Luke says, ‘“ It was first made when Cyrenius was Governor 
of Syria.” Here Prof. Ramsay adds little to our knowledge. His 
conclusion is that he was twice Governor of Syria, the second term 
6-9 A. D., and under him at this time was the taxing, Acts v. 37. 
Was he Governor earlier? He was administrator of Syria, 5-2 B.C. 
But in what capacity ? Not as administering the internal and civil 
affairs, for this was done by Saturninus and Varus, 7 B.C., but as 
haying direction of foreign affairs and command of the armies. 
He was a special lieutenant of Augustus, and conducted the war 
against the Homonadenses whilst Varus administrated the ordinary 
affairs. Thus at the time of the first enrolment Varus was the 


xXXvul ADDENDUM. 


civil governor and Quirinius the military commander, the legatus 
Augusti pro pretore. 

But the question arises : Would Luke speak of himas “governing” 
Syria if his office was that of military commander? Prof. Ramsay 
thinks he would, and cites some historical analogies. Luke might 
well have spoken of him as the Egemon, or Governor. 

We have still to note the bearings of this historical investigation 
on the chronology of the Lord’s life. 

The enrolment being periodic, having a cycle of fourteen years; 
He was born when the first enrolment of the series was being made 
in Palestine ; another followed after fourteen years. Prof. Ramsay 
makes the first periodic year to be that of 9-8 B.C., the actual 
enumeration beginning after it was ended, or during the year 8-7 
B.C. But this first enrolment was delayed in Herod’s kingdom, and 
made in late summer of 7-6 B.C. The Lord, therefore, was born 
6 B. C., though possibly as late as 5 B. C. 

His ministry began at the age of thirty in the latter half of 25 
A.D. The fifteenth year of Tiberius is to be counted from the time 
that he became the colleague of Augustus, 11-12 A. D. 

In regard to birth at Bethlehem, Prof. Ramsay says: “To go 
personally to the enrolment was regarded as substantiating a claim 
to a true Hebrew origin and family.” The “all” of Luke—“all 
went to be taxed ”—means all true Hebrews. 

The time of the enrolment was fixed by law, and he concludes 
that His birth was between August and October, since the pasturing 
of the floeks was only during the hot season and not in the winter. 


Tae Triat or Jesus Curist. A legal monograph by A. Taylor 
Innes, Advocate, Edinburgh, 1899. 

The points discussed in this monograph concern the relation in 
which the two trials of Jesus, that before Caiaphas and that before 
Pilate, stood to one another, their conformity with Hebrew and 
Roman law respectively, and the righteousness of each. 

Other subordinate questions are discussed: whether His arrest 
and subsequent examination were legal; whether there were two 
trials, one before Annas and one later before Caiaphas; whether the 
forms of Hebrew and Roman law were observed; and whether the 
Jews had power to put to death. 

His judgment as to the Hebrew trial is that the arrest and subse- 
quent examination, and the sentence—a sentence which described 
a claim to be the Fulfiller of the hope of Israel as blasphemy—had 
neither the form nor the fairness of a judicial trial. 

There is no reason to think that the Council missed the fact that 


ADDENDUM. xxix 


Jesus claimed to be their King, though they deeply misunderstood 
the nature of His kingdom. 

Of the trial before Pilate, Mr. Innes says: ‘‘ When Pilate sent 
Jesus to the cross it was as claiming to be a King, and on the origi- 
nal charge of acting adversus majestatem popult Romani. The judg- 
ment was legal, though the unjust judge did not believe init. ... 
The claim of Jesus was truly inconsistent with the claim of the State, 
which Czesar represented. . . . In both trials the judges were un- 
just, and the trial was unfair; yet in both the right issue was sub- 
stantially raised. ... Jesus died because in the ecclesiastical council 
He claimed to be the Son of God and the Messiah of Israel, and 
because before the world-wide Roman tribunal He claimed to be 
Christ the King.” 


CHRONOLOGY 


DATE OF LORD’S BIRTH. 


7or6 B.C. Turner, Sanday. 

6or5 * Ramsay, S. Matthews. 

5 sé Didon, Fouard, Gilbert. 

4 6¢ or earlier. Holtzmann, Von Soden. 


DATE OF BAPTISM. 


25 A.D. Ramsay. 

26-27 *“ Turner, Sanday. 

27 “ — Didon, Fouard, Hodge. 
28-29 ** Von Soden. 


DATE OF LORD’S DEATH. 


29 A.D. Ramsay, Wright, S. Matthews, Sanday, Gilbert. 
30 “ Didon, Fouard, Stapfer, Von Soden, Hodge. 


DAY OF CRUOIFIXION. 


Friday, 14th Nisan, March 18th, 29 A.D. Wright, Turner. 
Friday, 15th Nisan, April 7th, 30 A.D. Didon. 

Fouard says that the Lord partook of the paschal supper twenty- 
four hours before the legal time, or on the 13th Nisan. 

Sanday finds a contradiction between John and the Synoptists 
which he cannot now explain in relation to the paschal meal, and 
also as to the time of the day occupied by the crucifixion, 


xxx ADDENDUM. 


DURATION OF MINISTRY. 


1 year, 2 Passovers. Von Soden. 

2 years and more, 3 Passovers. Turner, Sanday, Wright, Gilbert, 
8. Matthews. 

3 years and more, 4 Passovers. Didon, Fouard, Ramsay, Hodge. 


DIVISIONS OF LORD’S MINISTRY. 


Banpay. Preliminary period, from winter, 26 A. D., to a little after 
Passover, 27 A.D. 1. Active period, from Pentecost, 27 A.D., 
to Passover, 28 A.D. 2. Middle period, from Passover to 
Tabernacles, 28 A.D. 3. From Tabernacles to Passover, 29 
A.D. 4. The Messianic crisis, six days before Passover, 29 
A. D., to Pentecost. 

Dmon. 1. Ministry in Judea, from baptism, 27 A. D., to John’s 
imprisonment early in 28 A.D. 2. Galilean ministry, from 
Passover, 28 A. D., to Tabernacles, 29 A.D. 3. Persean minis- 
try, from Tabernacles, 29 A. D., to last Passover, 30 A. D. 

Srevens and Burton. 1. From the coming of the Baptist to the 
cleansing of the temple. 2. Early Judzan ministry to the 
return to Galilee. 3. Galilean ministry, three periods in: a. 
To the choosing of the twelve. 0b. To the withdrawal into 
northern Galilee. c. To the final departure for Jerusalem. 4. 
Perzan ministry. 5. Passion week. 

Fovarp. 1. Judxan ministry from baptism to the imprisonment of 
the Baptist, from January to December, A.D. 27. 2. Galilzan 
ministry, to feast of Dedication, December, 29A.D. 3. Peraean 
ministry, from Dedication to last Passover, 30 A.D. Jesus at 
Jerusalem, Passovers, 28 and 29 A.D. 

Guzert. Twelve months of the public ministry spent in Judezaand 
Jerusalem and nine in Galilee. The Galilean ministry divided 


into two parts. 


GEOGRAPHY 


As to the places mentioned in the Lord’s life little new can be 
said, and the same want of agreement already noted continues to 
prevail. 

BerHpHaGE and Bernany. Schick, Qt. Statement, with map, April, 
1897. 

BerrHaBaAREH. The ford opposite Jericho, so Didon, Fouard, Stew- 
art; “quite uncertain,” G. A. Smith; near Bethshan, MacCoun. 


ADDENDUM. xXxxi 


Berusaripa. ‘Two of this name, one in Galilee, a mile north of 
Khan Minyeh, so Stewart, Ewing, Fouard, Didon ; only one, 
Bethsaida Julias, G. A. Smith, Socin. 

Cana. The traditional site, Fouard, Ewing, Stewart, MacCoun ; 
undecided, G. A. Smith. 

Caprernaum. Tell Hum, Didon; Khan Minyeh, G. A. Smith; un- 
decided, MacCoun. 

CHorazin. Tell Hum, G. A. Smith; Ain et Tin, Fouard. 

Decarouis. See G. A. Smith. 

Eymavs. Kulonieh, Fouard; Nicopolis (Amwas), Didon; Kubei- 
beh, Socin; Conder, uncertain. 

Sycnar. El Asker, G. A. Smith, MacCoun. 


THE HOLY SEPULCHRE. 


No new knowledge as to the course of the second wall has been 
gained by excavation, but the recent excavations of Dr. Bliss on 
the southern slopes of Mounts Zion and Ophel have an indirect 
bearing on the site of the Sepulchre. He has found that the south 
wall of the city was placed much further south than it now is, and 
included a large area now without the wall. It was upon these 
hills stretching down into the valleys of Hinnom and Jehoshaphat 
that the city was first built, and here was gathered the greater part 
of its population. It was not till the population overflowed the 
north wall that the second wall was built northward, and this took 
in only so much territory as then needed to be protected. 

The points in question are as to the dates of the south wall of Dr. 
Bliss, and of the second wall. If the south wall extended so far 
southward when the second wall was built, as his excavations show, 
it was not necessary that this last wall should extend far to the 
north. It was intended only as a defence to those living northward 
of the original north wall—only a suburb. It may therefore well 
have excluded the site of the Holy Sepulchre. 

It is said by Dr. Bliss (Quarterly Statement, 1895): ‘‘The wall 
occupied the extreme southern position, which is just the position 
of our wall. Our line is identical with that of the Jewish kings and 
of Herod, for in their various epochs the city obtained its maximum 
growth on the south ; and if Hadrian’s wall occupied a different line 
it would have been inside rather than outside this line, contracting 
not enlarging the city.” With this wall extending so far southward, 
it was not necessary that the second wall should extend far north, 
since it was intended only as a defence to those living in the north- 
ern suburb. The site of the present Sepulchre may, therefore, have 
been without this second wall, and the course of this wall as defen- 


Xxxii ADDENDUM. 


sive have been determined chiefly by the nature of the ground. 
That the city far outgrew the second wall is shown by the later 
erection of the third wall by Agrippa ; but though a large population 
may at the time of the crucifixion have lived without the second 
wall, the site of the Holy Sepulchre may also have been without it. 

The objection to the present site, drawn from the small area of 
the city, is thus at least partially set aside. 

There seems to be an increasing number who accept the claims of 
Skull Hill—the hill beyond the Damascus gate—to be the place of 
the Lord’s crucifixion and of His Sepulchre, though no new evidence 
in its favor has been presented. So Stewart, MacCoun, Wallace, 
Thurston in Journal Bib. Lit., 1900. Contra, Quarterly Reyv., July, 
London, 1899. 

It is admitted that the tomb shown there is not the garden 
Sepulchre. 


CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX. 





ttfeeeeeeer or Ar 
Vreecenseeerseleosenay re ut 
SUCOEC OOOO COUG OU on 5 as aie 


*fagsra 


shee eee ene eealeceeenne te, u 





Pee eeraeereees “On 6g It" 


pr are 
: "98-88 TH 
satereppey alternate neg a 


in) 








*NHOL ‘auo'T 








SOO aly ait OOS go aN 
PERS OON pei 9 UCC ey 


Peer rerngig afeeeeeeer or ny 








on 


"Hav “MORALLY AL 














O9T 
8gr 


9st 
SST 


pst 
LET 


ABT 


IW StH JO 19A0sseg 48117 





‘HOV 








POMO DOOR SEU ODUGIDUD CUT gyi ls) Suippem 
Wsiein/a/siaiesibiesicisin e-einie (EST ALORTCH 1801L OU; 


on POPO EEO OOR AOS ICAO alas} 8 | amy ugor jo SsouqT A 
reeeestagiideg 04} 0} 80}1A0T pus sysolig JO uolyeyndaq 






Cin 





ODNIGQUGIOCEOOS OOK Ay p jo uo1je}dmay, 
SO CEAG LA AOO ORIG GHOORD ROTTED GO DUC AET Iceyp jo wsydeg 


TUB IOUCIOOC OMICS OUI oto les jie) pl uyor Jo 3uqovorg 


teeeeesetaartTey 


‘uepi0r 
u0£aq 
uBq}eg 


‘gepne joqlasaq|** ‘qoqy—‘use 

“SUB pIOL OUL BT Fg 
“LS °M °V 

rd ‘sepne eee ‘amung 
"9% ‘a °V 


Lng 


oq} 03 snsegr Jo wIsIWdeg 94) WOI—"IT LUWd 


*****SI9A088Bq OT] Spud}}8 ade JO sIBOX OATOM] 4B SNSOL 
seeeeeseseseess 65797) UINOlOS PUB YJOIBZEN OF UINIAIT 
seeeeeestentgg0uUuy aq} JO 1a}qonRIS 

DG BOURUTOOG OBC ratty ovut AOSTA 
ttteees*UOWL OSTAA OG} JO JISLA 
srereeesestgngap JO UOIjRIUIsAIg 
sreereesse s Sansa JO MOISIOUINIIID 
2 FORD OIIO SIAR ONOIO AL Te ey4 (oa ay) puw jasuy au 
DOC MOLMUOTURCORIDOLIO IC ERIAe Ca obe “snsop jo qld 
**paxe] oq 0} Mleqa[qJo_ 0} oF Arey pus qdosor 
Sy er ‘anjarpouad) qsydvg oy} ugor jo qWIg 
srreesssstudagor 0} UOIjRIOUnUUy 
sree “QeoTUsBI) WJOQBzi[A 0} Av JO JISTA 
DB OIGEEO EIDE OS ITIVE SOLAN LP Contqe Coy lle} Oyeaq hahaa ss 


*4UOUAI]}O1 UI SAAT] PUB UOS B S9ATINU0D YYEqQVzILy 
Sale ae as nee Sie eer oe eB OMIZ 0} uolRiounuuy 

teseeteeterteetsstgoidormauay) 
lela ecejele sieinie eps eielaielsiee eke ST OGLE AG jo uoljonpoi4uy 








*INDAT 








oneee ‘mayesni0r 'g av g udy 
eee ewes ‘qyarezeny| SAB AL 
eee * ‘maya [TI0g 
eee wenne ‘dAdo 
+9 “mayqalqjed 
. ta Bendel? QUIOUCIO [= 5 
on 5 D Tomar: | “oee 


+o tray arqeg ih LOL oY ¢ E 
treseeeeetpcepnpl tounge 


sees “1 01BZBNT 
treeeeee steppe 


v+ees qgorezay| {9 256 ee 





sees ‘mepesnier: ‘9 ‘Oa “20 


“"HOVIG 





‘snsop JO UISIWdYg oY) 09 S¥IAYYOVZ 01 UOTWwIOUNUUY 943 WOIg—'T LUVd 


“XHCNI TVOISOTONOYHO GNV STIHdSO9 HHL AO ANOWYVH ANITLAO 


XXX1V 


HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS. 








eee nee eens 











a Si 
wee’ "QO-8E “MN 





*NHOL 








j 


l 





ee er i) 


Top eb calls tt gB-CR 
SORE «so | COO 


~TE “Al 


"TE “AT 
see 8Q8-97 “AT 
“QT PE “ATL 
+06 “GE “HES 


‘aN 0'T 











a "86-16 
PecUGED Pat 








reeeemer opr y 





“UV AL 








+ beunpren ret Gis 
B-1 WX) Coe 
"""6 °X!) 1B 
ee cegeatl aee 
“"h-@ MIA 
“FE '8S AL) GFE 











Snr aa 





3dvq oy? UYOLr JO YyYIwoeq oY) 03 JUOUIMOSTAdUIT OY} WIOAYT—"ALT © 








“MAHLLVL (“ADV 
| 








“tress * C1318 B Has pur omoydsr[q soosngg 
“uwur possessed quinp pur pul[q ® Jo Sulpwayy 
seers" Q9r1TRE) JO SAI}10 aq] UI satovod snsay 
“omg Jo a8noy UT UBUIOM B Aq SuyuOoay 
vseteessssssngar 0} Sa[diosip sIq spues uyor 
*UIRN 98 UOS §,MOPIM JO SuIsreyy 
‘QUBAIOS §,HOLINjUAY oy} JO SulpwoyyT 
MSI GDA CAV RN som eee OTTO TT aq) Uo OUNEg 
Bases See a Se aN est ATO MT OLY Jo Suysooyo 

seresesees ese SQIOUSRAS O} SMBIPYITM S80? 
““Heqqeg aq} uo puey paso iy Buleayy 
sreeees* STRGgGRg ay) UO UIOD Youd sadiosiq 
Vite eeeeeaeceeeeeeoneeteess MONVIVIN) [AOL JO SUITED 
eee eC eee Cee ee ee ee eee ee ee ‘or Apeand v jo Burvoy 
‘tadal @ Jo Aulpwayy 
‘dare UT AIISTUTTY 
‘s1oqj1o AuBU puR ‘ToqJOUI §,9JIM Slojag Jo Suljwayy 
teeeesesessSongoaBudg ul oRIUOWAp Jo Suwa 
ost a SETS Pie aah BS 5 Se STO TOOIIT jo Buryeo 
*‘trmensedey 7B opoqr sip] dn sexe] snsor 
steveereeeeeeeere tt oaBZRN 48 pojoalad sso 


treeeeeeeeCUTIOP JO SalI’ 1a}Jv do[][BH FUL so03 susoe 


















“‘upsorjog JO [oog 1v uRUI Jo Burwayy = *aaossn 
treeeeseesssuoMaIad UL snser £q jueds syoom Moy V 





OTIC eC OC HS (a) =| 8, uRmMe|qou fa) Jo Surpvayy 

trreeeeeereseseestoorimp, OFUT SAUI0S ShSa/? 
sree s* “PL IBUIBG JO UBUIOM TIM asINOdSI(T 
seeeeeseseeess=(O9TTTB) OU! SJaBdop snsor 
Bniele pie eisiovsls ssi SANTI CUS OUT uyor Jo AuoUIIse} LOIN] 
tteteeeererseeeserteceeersreetpaapnp UL soZIjdEq BUS 
seeeeseseessSSnUaPOOIN UPIAL es1NOdsI(T 
“‘giduay, ay} sesuvalo snsee ““aeossD 








stew ween 


ee! “‘uneusadeg 





“991118 
vere TENT 
oe ornediadeg 





‘unmade ION 
eee eee “20118 
‘ur medey Awan 


” 
ss mEUed By 


” 
seen *“SOTITBD) 


” 


” 


” 
os" Sompusad 89 
Heese ST QABZBN 


reese tgoriey 


AV 


soe STTTOTRSILIA 


‘cr, us0dey ‘eueg 
eee eee “SalI[BO 
sisiece eR OAR 





” 
ORIOL F310) 41 


” 
“oss STaTBSnIOf? 





*INDAT 





‘OVI 


seer “Tonay 


vere sonromng 


teen eweet 


en me 
1218 


‘Sew —ludy 


PSUROOOC 1G) 


Gg ady-0g “ep 


‘86° °V 
Feet eeeeeegage 


OT-TL tudy 
Loa ’v 








‘TLV 





‘AUQSUIL Uvepne eyL— ‘Il LUVd 


xXXXV 


CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX, 








“TG “X68 “XI 
SG 08 2 
"O9-GL “TIA 
“TE “TTA-8@ “ITA 
SS 


i) 









eee ey 






Cece etter eeeee 


sre a 
TOOL “IA 
I-T “IA 






Cee eee wees 














*"09-0P “XT 









“'Ob- Sh 
ae 
“OS -BG * 
*"L3-8G “3 
“BoB ° 








set eeee 


















0999-08 +x] 
"6-08 ‘XI 
"6G-PE “XI 
BIEL x] 

"01-8 "XI 
"TE 'X-¥ “INNA 
“8BLS “THA 








“06GB * 
See Gath! 
OL-IL 
se OLen 











“OBPE “TA 
"SORT “WA 


tee 90-69 "TA 
+ eG-Ob ‘TA 








“ATO “XI 
Pe CtnOE agifeeeeee ge ot, 
‘OOTT[BD WOuy oan 


iy 


Freep y oxy 
se egag oxy 


‘OG-Ob “IITA 
“88-6 
66°96 “WIA 











8T-h ‘INIA 
“"Te-OE “THA 


B-bE TA 
beevecrgped HA 
eget A 









OG=T A 
HE 8 
"PB 9G “AL 
"GGT “AL 









Gets “TL 


“8 "G8-T “TAX 
"""1E-PG “WAX 
‘ "TAX 






“TAX 
sengeceg HA 


“8O-BL “TAX 


oa TAX 
"68GB AX 
“T1863 "AX 


Pree cr Mae: 
"9G-P8 AIX 
"ECB AIX 
"TOBE “AIX 














(or peL x | 
1 $88-96 “x1 | 
89-£9 
"HB=2B “X| 
OBBE “XI 
ee U-OF "x 
“E 'XI-n@ “HA 
WEBB “IITA 

“BORE “UIA 
BG “IX 
ROE TX 
O9-Op “NX 














198 
298 
098 
O98 
698 
998 
98 
1eg 
6PE 
68 
8S 
Ope 
GbE 
[ps 
OPE 
OPE 
GbE 





javdop [euy oy 


£1g 
le 
608 


LOS 
908 
908 
GOS 
Q66, 
P60 
162 
166 
166 


‘‘ouinoosi(, "jsoyvord oq prnoys oM oyndsicy 
teeeesesnoprAaord A[snopnowarur AOUOUT-9}Nq 14 [, 
‘LONOOLINGAT PUB YVBop HIT S[[ojo1oy snsoe 
"AOE, DOMMRARCH oy) Jo BuryRoyy 
© SuW09 oy) sureydxe sus” 
“ STONMINAYSUBAL OL 
o(doad oy) sosserppe snso” 


ses TBS ATOY) S8OJUOd SO[dpoxI(] OY) puv Jojog 


reer ereererreere gor O} HLUINIOI SNS / 
treeeseessreses iodo Poor oy) snsof “sosIOdSI(T 
seeeeeeees OTT UIOG UBUD JO Dutvory 
“ TOIT] ou0}8 07 4CUO}}Y ‘“snHOe Jo Duyyouoy, 

teeeeeeeesee el SOUNDER Ul WOT) UBUIOM oq, | 
tereeees se teOORULIGH, JO I8TOJ oY) 4 ANBOL 
Pere rriertniie Engg uit putt 
“So0sLIUYg OU} JO UAARA] 2Y) ISUIVAR pourwmM so[dlos{d 
tereeeeeereresreorecessosssuaig 008 UjVIU s9ds|IVU 


Hieteesereserererereterserestaanty yo Sulpady 
*“‘sioqjo pue ‘uRU quInp puw yvop Jo dulvol] 


*TRUIOM uBpoyUMYdoAG Jo 1oyqYsNUp Jo Durjvoyy 


reeeceeeeeereceses SDUBY UOUSUMUN TIM 789 so[dost(y 
sees SSUES TORT OEM YaT fo} 4214 0.8 a OsINODSTCT 

‘Qo1vHOUUOL) 7B AUVOT ALVOTT 
teeeeeeesesessetpog on] UOdU SHUM Snsef? 
000'G JO durpooy puv ‘vox or) Jo Susso.ay 
reer te tonomT oy} JO UANOY 



































’ 
*‘comensodep 
eee eee “99[1[BD 


” 





yes ‘uourlayy “WA 


” 
{ “ddd 
BOIVHBY) IAN 


” 
” 
” 
” 





” 

se e'* STAT BANA (* 
tenes “apresyog 
**aT[BD Jo vos 
‘ore naday 
a ‘s1joduoacqy 
J ‘uopig 9 ork, 
{ Jo uolsoyy 


” 
*“‘cmeuiodrp 











‘jodvsouUar) 
““99TT1BH JO VOR 
steer *“aprestog 
**crnedredep 





1 03 IHdeg oY JO YIVOp oy WOAT—"A TVa 






treeees ttrinmueday 0} suanjed snsor 
“‘snsor Jo uoutdo §,posoyy = “yaydug Jo qyvocy 


Ph * OATOMT, OYJ JO Toy Duypuog 













Ce ey 100070 yn uoyoolor wo9eg 
sree sono qa quds quing, “Wout pul OMY JO Sulwoyy 


ses Hormay URMOM ‘snIiee Jo 1ayydnep Jo Dursyexy 
trerenibavaetesssverescoeestess age Jo ashon 10 IHOGT 
teeeeeeeeeereroes SeoOMOp JO BUI[BOLT 
teeeeeeeeessOgaduro} JO SUITS 
*BIAMOL[OJ OM) OL 
sees Sorquind Joqyo pus ‘Korvy, oy) JO o[quing 
BIC UEE ICCA OURO ON MI Sn aN 7 Ao ay} JO oqnae 





















068 


"tO TY OIG PUB LOTTJOUL SNS" JO STA. 


*‘conenioedep 
** ‘Sn enqoe yy 


Peer er etoor Tay 








ye “omnjny 


““8T-TL 90 


ease ) 
, TOUILUNG, 


Wel ceisioie erica 


terres CT OIRZBN sheen “IOVULAA, 





. 
” 


” 
vers Sornpaed By 
re ‘ga0d.105 





"66 "a °W 


HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS, 


XXXV1 


reeleeeereg “1g esi] 
re leeessg9-ag “x1 








*NHOL 


‘Auvyjog 3B [waldae oy) 0} ‘Aujsrul_, UvOeIOg OY) PUB ‘9v2a];11VH UOaZ AOUANOL 4sSVU_ 





"GE-BS 


Swinawen ba 19 "XI 


‘aMany 


THs" 














dag URW TRY om Jo ajquarg ‘“poaosdoas soasaeyd 
sete eens rae eee snfuy ey Jo a[quind 
Wit eeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeesog TREtpOdg atl JO afqvsved 
“T'S *OATIS JO Od9[d I8OT PAB “‘daoyg 180] Jo sajqnang 
ete Chee any 6s Se RT CERO ST andy jo pain ST IVA. 
““yoddng ywoit) aq) Jo a[quing 
“ses Kedoip Wj[M UROL B B[vAA, ‘oosTeGg UV GPM souy(y 





eee eee eee ee eee eee 


& Ssesee 3 33 


SS EAC SAS Sse P a Aneek ere Oe TOL puofsaq Sa11}od snsor 


a Sareea VIN Say SS ere ras METRE eu04s oy qdu19}48 sMor 
eee eee *‘*sasunoos(] “HOLT ROTpad. jo qsRoT 
eee EqIBy pus AI S}ISIA suse, 
i) ‘poioy{ ISUIvAE pouABA sy “Woes t 
$68 |) -naap spawmo} Surdousuof pus Suyyoroy seos snsor 
sreeees START OT] PUB Porag PARISNJL ay} JO sarquavg 
ss BqGBS oy} UO URTIOM WIguL Jo Sul[Bexy 
: “"9a1)-SIT Ud oy) JO a[quavg 
"TOOT YOR JO aqrisg  “asinods|(T 
sors soagtingd uodn 820A, “‘ASNOY 8,0a8LIN IB ISRdyT 
eS reeeessumnoosld ‘soos jo Atuoydsrig 
‘unu passessod quinp pue pul[q & Jo Surwoyy 
a ***fpad 0} Moy JqsNB) sopdiosi(y 
‘UB LIBLARE Poor) ay} JO a[qnavg 


*“Muaaag oy) JO Winjoyy 
**Surgovoy ‘sMoyjoy susor 
*‘qq40J Juas AJWOADS oy 
‘aldjosrp pe}ivoy-s/ey oy 


























seenee ‘Kango aoe ““qag—"use 


tereresetpattog see Crono ep 


‘uepi0r 
Frat t ‘ot "a’v 
uBqeg 
sees Sarapesnaer “+ *7%-0 "000 
stew ‘sueqog 


” 


” 
” 
” 
” 
” 
” 
” 
” 





” 
” 


” 
‘Balog 
** “9aTI[BD 








eee ewe eee eee eee eee 98e treeseeeeeeseecsoess «CHLIBUUBG Ul Pojdolad snsIr seeeess SBLIRUIBS 
seeee we ewey ogi sc cce tay xix} at rrseeeeseeeceeesereseseestoorimey tors omnjaBdap [Buy |*t**** ‘aoqen)*** “o0q—AONT 
66 “Vv 
“UV “MAHLLV |ad9Vg *INFATT ‘dOV Ig ‘aLVd 











eUL— IA LUVd 


CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX, 





“****09-06 “IX 


Oe eeeeeeeseree 





Steere eee nee 








Oe eee enneee 
Peewee ennee 
seen 
eee eeee 
eee wees 


thera te “Tx 





tee s90-@ cIxx 


"*2p-Qb "XX 
salen 
0F-28 “XX 
"98-08 “XX 





"61-6 “xx 


tere eeg Tox 
"28 ih Est 
“"Sh-Gh “XIX 


"Yh-68 "XIX 








“86-11 
Ose. 


“XIX 
*xIk 






"PST “TAX 
""08-8E “ITAX 
"AIST WAX 


“ETAT NTAX 


"18-06 “TAX 


“"6T-TE “HAR 


Sere e ee eeeee 


ae Sd) 2 6d [ADOC LEORG AS 











OMe ete tire 
mA BA 
"18" OF-88 
“payee 
vive 
reson pene 

eae RT 


or wee 





neues Ged 


"8898-08 “1X 
crt fe se 
ORT BE IK 
pee ra Ma 
ioe ne 


eee eee ewww nee 


‘MOTJOOAINSIIY CYR OF 





“Gh-C8 
danse eon icin 
Perea 

Ean 
"81% 








eee e ween eeee 

















"*'O8-PT “AXX] °°" 
Bt dare) 


“TQ-T CAIKK 






GO- GT “XX 
"PLT “WX 
OF-GE “IXX 
“""GE-BS “IXX 


BBG “PRK 
BB0G “XX 
TSE "Yee 
Am ED ‘ST *IXX 
ipo rte ie 


“"""8T-9 “IAXX 











5-68 (XX 
se Oe Oe XK 
OT-IT XX 
eng T xx 
08-97 “XIX 
“"""QT-8T “XIX 
ere oxi 






a ory 


Auvyjo”_ 78 [VAldae oYQ WOAT 


Teese snes ee eeeeeeeaeeeeeeeeeees MTOTISpPNE 49U'T OULL 
teeeeeeeesosesestenarey, OU} JO IQnIvd 
CPO ‘suTdat A. uaAL ou) jo aLqBivg 
§ *pLOM ou} t 
) Jo pue pus ofdmay, om) Jo MOsqaAO Jo ADoYdorg 

*‘asinoosigT ‘“snsef 3e9es Syx9a1H 
se eeenewentess nit § MOPUM OTLL, 
















*‘FOoSsTIRY| PUR SOqLIOg JO UOYBUMEpUo’ 
reeeersss rasta JO ok YUL IVYM «SHB snsoe 
*4UAWIPUBUIWIOLD JVOI oY} INOGR suO;senb oAMBT 
sees TONOaLINSel AY) JNOGB UoTsenbd sooonppts 
seeeeeses Corny qnoqe snser uolsenb soos egg 
serereeeees TOG s DULY OY} JO OdRILIBP OY} JO o[QuITg 
peeeeeeeeesecees TOUIPUBGSNET POM OY} JO 9[qQuivgd 
se ceceeeedaestscereses esses eelQUOR OMT) OU} JO 9[Q Blvd 


ee **‘pauoljsonb Ayaoqyne 8 ISO 
See a set Ho TOTIM 901)-3Y am 
reeeeessthaetjog 0} uInjay ‘a(duiag, oy) Jo Duysuwa[O 


teeeerecneseeceeeeeseres (oa11-Si WOLIBq OY} JO TuIsIng 
{ ‘Kuweyjog 0} t 
uinjor pure ‘ojdumay, 0} 481A ‘moyesnaor oul ArjUgy 








ae weeee so CBT Aq duyuiouy 
tebeeeeecccececscoeseresssssestCuptiag 0} S9Ul0d SnSEL 





seees tengaP SOALO00I SNBYOOUNZ 
“**tq90r pul[q Jo Jul[Royy 
‘iyo puR souIRe JO TONIqUy 
Fieisioieisie visleisewuisieeeieieseisls Conga MAM ATOlaLOL uIeaR snsor 
treeeseseesesesss(nipkoulA O} Ul S1010gBT JO a[Quid 
Peer ewer eesereeessesesveresesese s brMIT unod qo ou 
reeeeeesesess SIOIPTIYO O[}}1{ S9890[q PUT SoATO0o1 Snsor 
DOL OUUOOT OSD FIN ICT (oY 98) uus1989u00 s|deoo1g 
‘avorqud pue sasjieyg ‘ospn¢ ysnluy o4j3 —solquind 
CQO ORIN ara ATIC of) 9) jo mopsury oy} Jo dura109 ou 
see . eeeesceecesseesesseotnognalo Slode] UA, 
seeeeeseosnuey 4B 81 LOAOSSBY {II} UIeAydy ut suimolog 
{ ‘coreaqdy 04 { 
Sel1jo1 OF “Y}Bap 0} Bnser 4nd oj SMO JO JasUNOD 









nee 












: ij " ” ve 

” ” 

” ” 
““SOATIO JO JIN 
4 ” 

‘ ” 
” 
” 
p ” 
seeeee m 
eee i] 
” 
” 
” 
” 
aD { ‘ure/Banso 
48 od ua, 


“"SOATO JO Ap “ady “song, 
sree (TOT BATLIO 


““SOATIO JO “FINS 
sere BANIO (?|°% 


ee eeenee ‘ 


"idy ‘uo, 
‘ady ‘ung 








idy ‘48g 


” I 
teens ‘hueqiog, ‘Te “1B ante 


TWA LUuVvd 


see eneee 


teres tononiop 
**“OqoTef 1BON 


. a sores ee 





Persone entnatiog 
“‘BLIBUIBE JO “10g 
eeeee Cored ey . 18 —"qod 


sreees et fumaog. 


—— 


OF THE GOSPELS. 


XXXVI111 


HARMONY 


ere ae Care “Og “TUXx: Tee T eSB AX" 98 “GB "TARE 
See eee Mah = 3 ea . ae 

gen mmf Bs gga 
*°RE-gE xix!" *-2e-06 “rae { 88°28 86 AS ee et 
bead’) Se “XIX ed "OS ‘FS “TTAXX 
Santee a 
*-OF-88 “TAX 8-GE “MARX 
207 88, MATS SB Sr Mie BeST, “WARS 
ro 5 Atel aa | aed bee gedr at 
ee "eps peel eat {61 ‘St ‘TSpy} "*"O1-8 “HAXX 
one veeceeeeep sagleoeeg op Tae 
“99-09 “Xx aie evan sare] *"R9 “49 “JAXX 
“*""BO-OG “XX)*****L-09 “AIX * “QL-69 “TAXX 
pe a es in ade ee 





"CSE “TNIXx 
“""8G-8T MIXX, 


""'GI-GE "AX 
“I-9 “AK 








"16GB “WAX | 
RI-GT “HIAX § 








98-61 a + 
aes qr-8T Eee Riera ae cee Sra 
*'BI-OL WA] "*'8O-6P “UxX “99-09 "JAXX 
796-8 SINAX!"" Gh ‘Zp TXR! ‘OG-LP “TAXES 


"0 -OR-Op “TIX “OP-9G “JAXX 


68 “IExx|" 





°°" "98-98 
SE-EEISODT 


~ 





I °"GI-2T ‘JAXX 


sTemeemiocar street? 
*}es" "sory stixx]" 


t|eeee mgr sixx 





OT-PL “IAXX 
*""9-T “JAXX J 








*NHOE ‘any *“MEBLLV IY 











& 2 322222 2 228 





a eT ee 
“(WaT OATSIOg ‘OYA ,,) 88019 OP WOAJ PIO SILT 
pith ee lee tae) CO Beattie, sort AD 
ppeteeeesecccscsesersss natTondd aq 0} ABA pay ST snser 


| 
fees dase sr reeseeseersnsap asta[al O} SYIOS UBB OV[I 
**‘suarpjos Aq payooul pus ‘pasinoos ‘peumepuoo snser 
‘SUqqBIBG PUBWAP SMOL ‘SNSOL a8BA[O1 O} S908 OVI 
ceeednsee Verseeteeeesiecess+*1 9 4pO.OT 0} UaB BNEOL 
vreeessesss*STOnTpas WIM PosIUYd :aIB[lq e1oJoq suse 
Sy SeRI as Ess kone Cheyer ee onenseys) EoD TSO 

Auroqdse[q { 

“UlIpequrg ey) Jo Duyaoy 

*“saruloue sq Aq payoom snsor 


se ceceseeeress an treeeeeeestaqnog Jo sperma 


“aLpeyuRg aq) o10jaq snsor 
view ‘suydniep orojoq snsor 


steeeeseeceecesestonTderey 0} Ut} ‘sBUUY 0} pol snsor 


PteteteeeeeeveeeresereeessQgqqiE OM, 
eee seree se keajaq aaL 
auvuIOSyOy) JO uapaes oy} ul AUST oy, 
“‘poUNpYUOD S.lajoq “Woy S008 snsor 

verses s’sngae Jo 1oAuig A108800.10]UT 
“sees Sensor JO asINOOSI(T [[OMOIB YT 
strtereeeereereserreeedionog Jo TRY at} S[[a}010J sneal 
ey *Saddng §, p10’, aul jo uonnjysuy 
seeeeeesesting g005 SRpNY “AaABIJOQ OY] SolB[OVp snsor? 





ae poutmepuos snsor 











re eee eee *Saddug [eqoseg oy 
ee “so(d1osip SIy JO Joay oy) SoysUa suser 
we Maitre ahraereanee ““aquapaoaad 10J OFS 


seeeeees stroos addn Oo) 18 [BALI 
s/sinisivisnibiaisisis's alsip OVO LNs e18s STQK GURU ay} 10J uowandaig 
POULT ODO ORIEL CIOUCIELS rclen(sba iene 83008 snsor 


seeeeeececeseosstenpne JO uresIBg ‘sio[N1 Jo Sujo[g 





era) 


*LNTAG 














sete 





” 

seen 
” 

seen 
” 

steno 
” 

seeeee 
” 
” 
” 
» 

seeeee 
” 

tener 
” 

steer 
” 

seeeee 
” 

seeeee 
” 
” 
” 





et, ” ” 
"*89A10 JO “WW 
me ” 





eRe) LING) G { ‘ 


” 
““ueresnso('|‘9 


steers “H'V6 


sre OR IT Og 


‘KY OT 
4 ad ha 
“* GUSlOpIAL 


dy “GL 


teen ‘Kueyjog ‘g “dy “DOAA 


wee *-“qoresnias’ 


*aOVIg 





(Cpanujjuog)— "“o}DVdaNsoy Vy 07 AUBYIOG 9” [VALU OY) WO — "ITA LYHWVd 


“08 “a@*V 





"aL 





XXxX1ZX 


CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX. 





Lhe ‘ ¥ IxXx 
Tg Mie Sox} 






8O-T “IXX 
Gees ety tere 
$0999 80-8T “XX 


ee eed 





ey 
Corer eee eens 


eeeor rr xx 
an “Or @ 'Rx 





OG oxix 


“08 “XIX 











**"89-09 *AIXX 
peaehiae hte 
Atel 


*"Bh-98 “AIXX 


“""CG-6T “AIXX 


"1E-6 “AIKX 
pep ares 
88 *ALKK 


Peewee eee 


are Oh *AIXX 


ee ey 





"98-09 * 


6P-OF “Gh “IIxx 


“QP-PP MIXX 
SP-68 “MIXX 
“LOGE “1IKX 











rereeergy tax 
EIT Witt 4 









**oT-oT “TAX! 





eee eee eee 


seereemr TAR 
[g ‘Ax “109 {] 
RD 
ae 
*B-Q “TAX 


Heer TAX 


ei iit 






‘[8E-6 “1 SIV 
“"LB-T “T 8}0V 
LAX ‘10 T 
*OZ-OT TIAXX 









‘[g "AX "10D T] 


“"CL-LT “HIAXX 








189 
O89 
269 
RGD 
G69 
£ao 
069 
G9 
PIO 
619 
p09 
£09 
£09 
669 
G09 
269 
989 





U0 AOE TA TTA RTI (0 ( pus AVAL JO suojsnjou0D 


eee eee eee reeeeees MOISUODSV OWL 
reeeestegsody ou} [|B 0} Savoddr off 
eee e eens reeees stooripe OF slvodde oT 
[UTUIOD YRoId OL ‘opngiy[uur v oO} savodde ofy 
treetresececes sees storey) Ul UdAoS 0} Suvodde off 
** ‘SCULOML WIM sopjsode 1040 oy4 0} suvodde off 
seeeeestonmouL dooxe so(jsode oy} 0} savodde of{ 
SO SIO ALICE STORE IO CSO USCA Goats) 07} savoddr oH 
sreeeeeesstonvuruly 0} ABA 0} UO OM) 0} Svadde snsor 
seeeseseceserescosocesctensorid oy} 0} J10da1 parnd on, 
Foe ones eee seve ssneses sens eOIIOM OT) OF savoddu oH 
*‘ouarepany Arey 0} savodde snsop 
seers Sorqoindag ot) 0) OF UYOL puB 1o}ag 
“ orgorndeg oy) ye UatIOM ayL, 
“TIYOL pus LojJog S[[Rd oU[epsL Areyl 

terres Corgorndag oy] 0} AUI0D TOU A 
te eeeeeeweseeseveses sO JOINS OY} JO SULUIOUL OUT, 





ee 








wee 





















*MOISUDDSY OY} 07 UOMOOAIMSOY OY? WOT —"TITA LUVd 


"*Lb-Oh “A 


“Th-AB “AX 
1 ge *Ax 
"GE ‘PE “AX 



















seen eee 


“""""GE-6R 


“AX 


“99-29 “TTAXX 





“99-09 “ITAXX 






“6P (Bh “HAXX 
"Lb Op “MAXX 
ae HARK 


““Ph-68 “TAXX 


| 


699 
G99 
19g 
09g 
09g 
699 
6a9 
2g 
9g¢ 
9g9 
agg 


sees Sorqorndog oy) 4B YOIVM OUT, "[BLINq oy 
“opis oy} Ul dnads ® YjIM poosord ST snsor 
“‘ovenbyey juor [JOA ‘solp snser 
“Cojo (‘spuBy At} OJUT ,,) POM TWAS 
Sa eat oe ah i S141 ,,) PIOM TAXIS 
seveeeeeeeoess®( 811) T,,) PIOM UIA 
***“(DoF) 0} S801]8IP JO AID) POM T)MMOYT 
sereesesesees NUBT OY} SLOAOD S8OU31B(T 
(mos Aq] ployod ‘ULUIO AA ,,) PAOM PALL, 
seeeeereeses(Jorq) Guo}fued aL) PlOM puodsdg 
eveeeerrerss (85010 0) UO Snsef 48 90UI SMOL? 

















eee ‘hueyjog 
‘n19/Bsn10 2 





eeeee Pitta) 
“9a[1[BH JO Bag 


” 

ee ” 
‘mo[Benso? 
Sn RULU GL 

sreratoia - 

me. ” 

ia ” 

” 

ge ” 

np ” 

pe ” 
bei) Len Gy bl 

” 

” 

” 

” 

” 

” 

” 

” 

” 

a ” 
‘oo BsnI0L 








‘er Av NGG 


+ hKow—ldy 
eee “ude 
‘op ady “ung 





‘6 ‘udy “ung 


eee eebenr "dL 9-8 


ooo weber ag 8 


DUOOOOUGLD g ot 


Map 
Map 
Map 
Map 
Map 
Map 


Map 


LIST OF MAPS AND PLANS, 





OF PALESTINE, . . ° 


OF JERUSALEM, . - ° 


OF PoLiTicaAL DIVISIONS OF PALESTINE, . 


oF N. W. Coast oF THE SEA OF GALILEE, 


facing page % 
facing page 58 
Sacing page 142 
»  ' a eee 


oF SEA OF GALILEE AND THE PARTS OF EASTERN GALILEE, 240 


oF N. E. PART oF THE SEA OF GALILEE, 


OF THE Mount oF OLIVES, 


. 


2 ae 
facing page 428 
























° Mt.Ebal < = 
ame 
su SER Well 
Mt.Gexizifn 
> 
= S“Ssnifon 


 °Arin\jathea f 


¥. Samaria 

















Ce ay NITIS 
— _ a ~ 
4 Bh 


PALESTINE 
in the time of 


6? & Kane | ae” SI CHRIST 


ae, 


E.Sandoz,del 










CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAY. 


{In the following essay and throughout this work the dates are given ac- 
cording to the wra beginning with the building of Rome, or ab urbe condita ; 
more briefly, u. c. Reckoning backward from Christ, the year 1 of Rome 
corresponded to the year 753 B.C. The year of Rome corresponding to the 
year 1 of the Christian era was 754. Hence, to obtain the year of Rome after 
Christ, we:must add to 753 the number in question: thus the year 30 A. D. 
would correspond to 753+30, or 783. If we would obtain the year of Rome 
before Christ, we must subtract the number in question from 754: thus, if 
Herod died four years before the Christian era, or 4 B. C., 754—4 would give 
750 of Rome. Always, if not expressly stated to the contrary, the year of 
Rome is to be understood. | 


I. DATE OF THE LORD’S BIRTH. 


Datum 1.— We take as our starting point in this inquiry the state- 
ment of Matthew (ii. 1-9) that Jesus was born before the death of 
Herod the Great. We must, therefore, first ascertain when Herod 
died. According to Josephus,' ‘‘he died the fifth day after he had 
caused Antipater to be slain, having reigned since he caused Antigo- 
nus to be slain, thirty-four years, but since he had been declared king 
by the Romans, thirty-seven.” He was so declared king in 714. 
This would bring his death in the year from ist Nisan 750 to 1st 
Nisan 751, according to Jewish computation, at the age of seventy. 

But the date of his death may be more definitely fixed. Josephus 
relates’ that he executed the insurgents, Matthias and his companions, 
on the night of an eclipse of the moon. This eclipse took place, as 
has been ascertained by astronomical calculations,* on the night of 
the 12th and 13th March, 750; yet he was dead before the 5th of 
April, for the Passover of that year fell upon the 12th April, and 
Josephus states that before this feast his son and successor, Archelaus, 
observed the usual seven days’ mourning for the dead. His death 


1 Antiq., xvii. 8. 1. 2 Antiq., xvii. 6. 4. 
3 Ideler, Handbuch Chronologie, ii, 391, 4 Antiq., xvii. 8. 4. 


(1) 


2 CHRONOLOG’CAL ESSAY. 


must therefore be placed between the 13th March and 4th April, 
750. We may take the ist of April as an approximate date.! 

How long before Herod’s death was the Lord born? The Evan- 
gelists Matthew and Luke relate certain events that occurred between 
His birth and Herod’s death, — His circumcision upon the eighth day, 
the presentation at the Temple on the fortieth, the visit of the Magi, 
the flight into Egypt, the murder of the Innocents. Whatever view 
may be taken as to the order of these events, they can scarcely have 
occupied less than two months. This would bring His birth into 
January, or February at latest, 750. 

Datum 2.— Having thus reached a fixed period in one direction, 
and ascertained that His birth cannot be placed later than the begin- 
ning of 750, let us consider the data that limit the period upon the 
other side. And the first of these we find in the statement of Luke 
(ii. 1-6) that He was born after the edict of Augustus that all the 
world should be taxed. In obedience to this edict His parents went 
to Bethlehem to be taxed, and there He was born. 

Let us inquire what chronological aid this statement gives us. 
Two questions may be asked: When did this decree go forth? 
When did it go into effect in Judea? We here pass by the many 
historical points connected with this edict and its execution, as these 
will be examined later. 

1. When did this decree go forth? It is known from Suetonius 
and from the Ancyranian monument that Augustus three times 
instituted a census, in 726, 746, and 767. Of these, the second only 
needs to be considered.” Is this to be identified with that in Luke ? 
Do the two stand in any known relation to each other? It would 
seem not, since that in Luke embraced the whole empire, and the 
census of 746, as also those of 726 and 767, was confined to the 
Italians or Romans, and seems not to have extended to the provinces, 
and thus was a census civivm (Usher, x. 458; Greswell, i. 536, and 
422; Zumpt, Sevin). Woolsey says (Bib. Sacra, 1870, p. 297): 
‘* There is no evidence that these censuses extended beyond Italy, or 
included any beside Roman citizens.” (This, however, is doubted by 
many, — Browne, 45; Friedlieb, 58; Sepp, i. 141. See Ewald, 
v. 141.) All we can say is, that this census in 746 was about the same 
time as the taxing in Luke, but cannot be identified with it, and, 
therefore, gives in this inquiry no definite chronological datum.* 

1 Almost all chronologists agree in putting Herod’s death in 750. So Browne, Sepp, 
Wieseler, Ammer, Ewald, Winer, Meyer, Sevin, Schitirer, Zumpt, Woolsey, Keim; 749, 
Jarvis; 750 or 751, Clinton; 751, Greswell, Pound, Quandt; 752, Caspari. 

2Zumpt (209) accepts the year 727 as that in which this decree went forth, and it= 


execution as beginning in the provinces in 744. 
3 As to these censuses all falling on Sabbatic years, see Caspari, 37; also Quandt, 7. 


DATE OF THE LORD'S BIRTH. 3 


In this matter we have no help from contemporary historians, 
since none mention the decree. Nor do we gain much help from 
Luke’s statement that the decree went out ‘‘in those days.” Strictly 
construed, this must be understood of the time embracing the events 
related in his first chapter—a period of a year and a half or two 
years. But the phrase is often taken in a larger sense (Matt. ii. i; 
Acts v. 26), and may be understood as equivalent to “about this time.” 
Assuming it to have been a general census, we have, therefore, no 
certain knowledge how long the interval was before it was carried 
into effect in Judea. 

2. Can it be ascertained from any data when this edict went into 
effect in Judea? If so, it must be through those who executed it — 
the governors of Syria — by knowing the times of their administrations. 
And here we have two sources of information, St. Luke and Tertullian; 
let us examine the statement of Tertullian first. According to him 
(Adv. Marc. iv. 19, about 207 A. D.), the census at the birth of Christ 
was taken by Sentius Saturninus. Sed et census constat actos sub 
Augusto tune in Judea per Sent. Saturninum, apud quos genus ejus 
inquirere potestis. 

But has this statement any historical value ? Some have ques- 
tioned it, but it is received by many modern scholars (Zumpt, Lewin, 
Friedlieb, Browne, McClellan). Woolsey says: ‘‘This information 
is historical, and justly regarded by the best scholars as of the 
highest importance.” 

When, then, was Saturninus governor? He is often mentioned 
by Josephus (Antiq., xvi. 10. 8; xvi. 11.3; xvii. 1.1. War, i. 27. 2; 
i. 29. 3). There is general agreement that his administration ended 
in the summer of 748, when he was succeeded by Varus (Greswell, in 
750); but there is difference of opinion as to its beginning,— most say, 
in 746 (so Ideler, Sevin; Zumpt, in 745). If we accept Tertullian’s 
statement, the execution of the decree must have been begun by 
Saturninus before the end of 748. We may suppose the following 
order of events. Early in his governorship, 746-748, Saturninus is 
directed by the Emperor to carry out the decree in Judea, and this 
he did, or began to do. If the enrollment (Luke ii. 31) was by him, 
the Lord was born in 747 or 748; and each of these dates is accepted 
by many. (For 747 Ideler, Jarvis, Sepp, Patritius, Alford; for 748 
Kepler, Lewin.) 

But if the execution of the edict was only begun and not com- 
pleted under Saturninus, the Lord may have been born under his 
successor, Varus, —the governor from the summer of 748 to the sum- 
mer of 750. As he was governor at the death of Herod in April, 


, 


4 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAY. 


750, the Lord, if not born under Saturninus, 746-748, was certainly 
born under Varus, and probably in 749. 

We now turn to the statement of Luke (ii. 2), ‘‘ This taxing was 
first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.” This statement is 
susceptible of various interpretations, which will be hereafter ex- 
amined. But it is to be noted that it does not say that the Lord was 
born during his governorship; only that the decree was executed, or 
was in process of execution, at the time of His birth. Cyrenius 
or Quirinius (R. V.), if he were twice governor, probably succeeded 
Varus in the summer of 750, and certainly after Herod’s death, 
and therefore after the Lord’s birth. Our knowledge of the length 
of his administration, supposing him to have followed Varus as 
governor, gives us no help in our chronological inquiry. The point 
whether Saturninus and Quirinius may not have been commissioners 
extraordinary, or Saturninus governor and Quirinius such commis- 
sioner, and both have conducted the census, will be considered later. 

From Tertullian, then, we learn only that the Lord was born sub- 
sequent to the year 746. From Luke we can draw no chronological 
conclusion, since the relation of Quirinius to the first stage of the 
execution of the decree is uncertain. 

Datum 3.— The statement of Luke (iii. 28), ‘‘ And Jesus Himself 
began to be about thirty years of age,” is rendered in the R. V. 
‘‘And Jesus Himself, when He began to teach, was about thirty years 
of age.” Most modern scholars accept the latter rendering. (Wieseler, 
Beitrage, 165, ‘‘ He was in the beginning ”—i. e., the time immediately 
after His baptism — ‘‘ about thirty years old.”) It is said by Godet: 
‘‘The expression ‘He began’ can only refer in this passage to the 
entrance of Jesus upon His Messianic work.” And Woolsey says: 
‘This explanation is far preferable to any other.” 

If rendered ‘‘ He began to be about thirty,” it must be understood 
as saying that He was about, but not quite, thirty. (So Lightfoot, 
Greswell, Bloomfield.) Greswell affirms that this was the universal 
interpretation of the words by the Greek fathers. (Butsee Patritius, iii. 
388 ; as to the chronological conclusions drawn by them, see Zumpt, 243.) 

Taking the meaning to be ‘‘Jesus was about thirty when He 
began His ministry,” and we may count His baptism as its beginning, 
we ask, How great latitude shall be given to the expression “about 
thirty” 2 According to some, it is to be understood asa round or 
indefinite number, embracing any age between twenty-five and thirty- 
five. But when we consider how short was the Lord’s ministry, this 
is in the highest degree improbable. According to others, it permits 
a 'atitude of two orthree years, (SoAmmer, Alford, Sevin. Browne 


DATE OF THE LORD’S BIRTH. 5 


says, ‘‘any age between twenty-six and thirty-two”; Keil, ‘‘ He may 
have been thirty-two”; Lewin, ‘‘age thirty-three and upwards.”) 
But even the latitude of a year is hardly justified by Luke’s use of 
language.'| The more natural construction is that the Lord was some 
months or part of a year more or less than thirty. (So Meyer, Alford, 
Norton, DeWette, Wies., Tisch., Rob. Edersheim says, ‘‘either a 
little more or a little less than that exact number. He was not just 
thirty, nor twenty-nine, nor thirty-one.”) Still it cannot be positively 
affirmed that the Evangelist does not use it in a larger sense. 

The argument that He was thirty at this time, because the priests 
at this age began their ministry,” has little force. The law (Num. iv. 
3) has reference only to Levites, and the age when the priests began 
to serve is not known.* Besides, Jesus was not a priest, although the 
Baptist was. 

Datum 4.—Tf we assume that the Lord was about thirty at the 
beginning of His ministry, we must, to make this datum useful in our 
present inquiry, ascertain in what year this ministry began. This, it 
is said, we are able to do through the words spoken by the Jews at 
Jerusalem in reply to His parable respecting the temple of His body 
(John ii. 20): ‘‘Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this 
temple in building, aud wilt thou rear it up in three days?” (SoR.V. 
By some, as by Lightfoot, it is rendered ‘‘ Forty and six years hath 
this temple been in building.” So Gres., Norton, Bloom.) This im- 
plies that it was not at this date completed; and we know from other 
sources that it was not; this building, or rather rebuilding, of the 
temple being begun by Herod in the eighteenth year of his reign, or 
during the year from Nisan 734 to Nisan 735. (Jos., Antiq., xv. 11. 1.) 
The forty-sixth year following was from Nisan 780 to Nisan 781. 
But from what point of time are the forty-six years to be reckoned? 
Up to this time, to the Passover when the words were spoken, the 
work of rebuilding, which began in the autumn, had continued, and 
was not yetended. But is the forty-sixth year to be taken as current, 
or as completed? If the latter, the Passover was that of 781. (So 
Wieseler, Meyer, Weiss, Tisch., Schiirer, Lange, Godet.) If the 
former, it was that of 780. (So Lardner, Licht., Friedlieb, Edersheim, 
McClellan, Woolsey. The temple was finished later under Agrippa. 
(Jos., Antiq., xx. 9. 7, in 817 Godet, in 818 Meyer.) 

If, however, this statement is understood as by Tholuck; ‘In 
forty and six years was this temple,” all that is yet finished, ‘‘built,” 


1 We give for comparison all the passages where acet is used by him in connection with 
numerals: Gospel, i. 56; ix. 14; ix. 28; xxii. 59; xxiii. 44; Acts of Apostles, ii. 41; ty a 
Vo a6: x. St) xix. 7. 

2 So Lightfoot, Jarvis. 8 Winer, ii. 769. 


6 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAY, 


it loses all its chronological value. ‘*‘ We may suppose,” he remarks, 
‘‘that at this time, probably after the completion of some main part 
of the edifice, a cessation in the building had taken place.” But in 
this case, as it is impossible to tell when this cessation began, we 
cannot say how long the forty-six years had been completed. 

There is still another view of this passage founded on the render- 
ing of vats as opposed to iepdvy, and meaning ‘‘the sanctuary”; not 
the whole temple, but the holy and most holy places. Taking this 
view, Quandt (16) refers the statement to the period of the rebuild- 
ing under Zerubbabel, after the return from Babylon. But this has 
few advocates. 

All, therefore, that this statement respecting the time occupied 
in the rebuilding of the temple, gives us, is the strong probability 
that the Lord’s first Passover was that of 780 or 781. The former 
has most in its favor. Edersheim (i. 375) remarks ‘‘that if a Jew 
had calculated the time at the Passover 781, he would not have said 
forty-six but forty-seven years was the temple in building.” The 
Passover of 780 fell upon the ninth of April. If then He was about 
thirty at this time, but not a year more or less, His birth would be 
about 750. His baptism was a few weeks earlier than the Passover, 
for there intervened the temptation of forty days, His return to 
Jordan, His visit to Cana and to Capernaum, and His journey to 
Jerusalem. Allowing two or three months for all this, His baptism 
was in the last of 779, or beginning of 780. If we suppose Him to 
have been just thirty at His baptism, His birth must be placed in the 
last of 749, or beginning of 750. If, then, for reasons already given, 
we cannot interpret ‘‘about thirty ” as a wholly indefinite expression, 
but must understand it as meaning that He was some months more or 
less than thirty, we cannot place His birth earlier than the middle 
of 749. 

Datum 5.— Still another datum is the visit of the Magi. This, as 
we learn from Matthew (ch. ii.), was before the death of Herod, and 
so before April, 750. How long an interval elapsed between their 
coming and his death, is matter of inference. Their arrival at 
Jerusalem cannot, however, well be placed later than February, 750. 
At this time Herod was there (Matt. ii. 1-7), but at the eclipse of the 
moon,’ March 12-13, he was at Jericho, where he subsequently died. 
If, then, the Magi came in February, the Lord’s birth must have 
taken place some time earlier, as early at least as the beginning of 750. 

The cause of the coming of the Magi to Jerusalem was the appear 
ing of a star, which in some way, whether by astrology, or tradition, 








1 Josephus, Antiq., xvii. 6. 4, 


DATE OF THE LORD’S BIRTH. 7 


or by direct divine revelation, they knew to indicate the birth of the 
King of the Jews. If this star were a real star, subject to the ordi- 
nary laws which rule the heavenly bodies, and the time of its appear- 
ing could be determined astronomically, we should find in it a most 
valuable chronological aid. But many regard it as wholly super- 
natural, a luminous body like a star specially prepared by God for 
this end; and others as a new star, that, after shining awhile in the 
heavens, totally disappeared; and others still, as a comet.’ If either 
of these suppositions be correct, it gives us no chronological datum. 
But a considerable number of modern commentators are inclined to 
regard it asa conjunction of planets, and its time thus capable of 
determination. This hypothesis was first advanced by Kepler, whose 
attention was turned to the matter by a similar conjunction at the 
close of 1603, A.D. In December of that year, Saturn and Jupiter 
were in conjunction, and to them in the spring following Mars was 
added. In the autumn of 1604, a new star of distinguished brilliancy 
appeared, which, however, soon began to fade, and finally, at the 
end of 1605, vanished from sight. His attention thus aroused, 
Kepler found by computation that during the year 747 of Rome, the 
planets Jupiter and Saturn three times came into conjunction. These 
computations, according to the latest corrections, show these conjunc- 
tions to have taken place on May 29th, October ist, and December 
5th, of that year, allin the sign of Pisces. At the first conjunction 
they were only one degree removed, in the two latter were so near 
that both planets appeared to a weak eye as one. In the spring of 
748 to these conjunctions Mars was added, and from some Chinese 
astronomical records it has been affirmed that a comet was visible 
from February to April, 749, and again in April, 750. (Ideler, Hand- 
buch Chronologie, ii. 456; Wieseler, Syn., 67; Zumpt, 302.) 

Several difficult questions meet us here. Are these planetary con- 
junctions to be regarded as the star seen by the Magi? ‘‘ We have 
seen His star in the east.” That the word acr7p originally meant a 
single star is admitted, and was distinguished from dozpév, but this 
distinction was lost later. McClellan affirms (400) that ‘‘the word 
cannot in any case be a conjunction of stars,” and Meyer that 
‘‘this star was certainly not a constellation.” (So Trench, but not so 
positively, Star, 29; and Ellicott.) But Edersheim (i. 204, note 2) 
quotes Schleusner (Lex. in N. T.) to prove that dor#p may be used of 
constellations, meteors, and comets: omne designare quod aliquem 
splendorem habet et emittit. Alexander in loco says: ‘‘ Star is in Greek 


1 Winer, ii. 523. Trench, Star of the Wise Men, 28. Spanheim, Dubia Evangelica, 
Pars Secunda, 


8 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAY. 


applied to any luminary in the heavens, whether fixed star, planct, 
comet,ormeteor. . . . It may denote the conjunction itself, or the 
appearance of a new star.” Ebrard (283), however, attempts to show 
upon astrological grounds that the star cannot have been a fixed star, 
because these do not change their places; nor could it have been a 
comet, since comets, though portents, cannot astrologically indicate 
a definite event, as the birth of a king; nor can it have been a new 
star, since no previous knowledge of it existed, and could have no 
astrological value. It must, therefore, have been one of the planets. 
But as the appearing of a single unrelated planet would have in 
astrology no significance, it must have been a conjunction of planets. 

But if it be admitted that the term may have so large a meaning 
as to embrace the heavenly bodies in general and their conjunctions, 
yet the mention of ‘‘ His star” seems plainly to refer to the prophecy 
(Numb. xxiv. 17): ‘‘There shall come forth a star out of Jacob,” a 
prediction to which the Jews in the Lord’s day gave a Messianic in- 
terpretation. The idea of a conjunction of planets being the star, 
seems thus excluded.’ 

But would any conjunction of planets answer to the statements of 
Matthew respecting this star? If so, they must have been so near 
together as to appear as one. This is said by Ideler. But, on the 
other hand, Rev. Prof. Pritchard (Smith’s Bible Dict., i. 1072) 
denies that the two planets were so near together as to appear 
asone. He finds, and his calculations have been verified and con- 
firmed at Greenwich, ‘‘that this conjunction was not on November 
12th, but on December 5th, and that, even with Ideler’s some- 
what strange postulate of an observer with weak eyes, the planets 
could never have appeared as one star, for they never approached 
each other within double the apparent diameter of the moon.” Even 
if for a short time the two planets appeared as a single star, this 
would hardly answer to the accounts which Matthew gives of its 
movements. 

If, then, we reject the view that a conjunction of planets was 
the star of the Magi, was it a new one? This was held by Augustine 
and many of the ancients, meaning, however, not merely a newly- 
appearing, but a newly-created star (Minter, Das Stern, 9; Trench, 
Star, 28). That it was a new star, following the conjunctions, was 
held also by the astronomer Kepler. He was led to this conclusion 
the more readily that some thirty years before his day there appeared 


1Tt is a remark of Lewin (878), that rumors of the coming Messiah, occasioned by the 
vision of Zacharias and the birth of John the Baptist, had spread from Jerusalem to 
the Jews of the East, and thus led the Magi to watch the heayens. This is very im- 
probable, 


DATE OF THE LORD'S BIRTH. 9 


a very remarkable star, which is thus described by Graut (Hist. of 
Phys. Ast., 539): ‘‘It was first seen by Tycho Brahe on the evening 
of the 11th of November, 1572. It then surpassed in lustre the 
brightest of the fixed stars, and was even more brilliant than the 
planet Jupiter. . . . It almost rivalled Venus, and, like that 
planet, was seen by some persons even in the daytime. During the 
remaining part of November it continued to shine with undiminished 
lustre, but it subsequently began to decline, until at length, in the 
month of March, 1574, it ceased to be visible.” Another new star 
appeared in 1604, and was seen by Kepler himself, who describes it 
‘* as surpassing in brightness stars of the first magnitude, as well as 
the planets Mars, Saturn, and Jupiter, all of which were in its vicin- 
ity.” Like the star of 1572, it began to decline soon after its appear- 
ance, and finally ceased to be visible between October, 1605, and 
February, 1606. Grant adds, that ‘‘ phenomena of a similar kind 
have subsequently been observed, but have not exhibited such re- 
markable features as the two stars just mentioned.” But if the star 
of the Magi was a new star, as held by Kepler and many since, has its 
appearance any chronological value? Clearly it has not, unless we can 
connect it in point of time with the conjunctions of 747, whose times 
we know. This was done by Kepler, whose attention was turned to 
the matter by the similar conjunctions in 1603 and 1604. The new 
star of which mention has been made, appeared in October of this 
year, 1604. Kepler, having ascertained that like conjunctions took 
place in 747, inferred that a new star may then have appeared follow- 
ing the conjunctions— the star of the Magi. If this were so, and 
at a like interval of time, its appearance would have been in 748, 
and thus would give us a chronological datum. 

But other questions would here arise. Did the new star indicate 
to the Magi the actual birth of the Lord, or the announcement to the 
Virgin of His birth? (Luke ii. 31.) Or did it merely indicate, like 
the conjunction of which Abarbanel speaks as occurring three years 
before the birth of Moses, that the time of His birth was approaching? 
(Wieseler, Beitrage, 153, affirms that it was a common Jewish belief 
that these conjunctions preceded the birth two or three years, but 
this statement seems to rest on no sufficient authority.) We cannot 
answer these questions. If a new star, like that in Kepler’s day, 
appeared to the Magi, and if it followed at a like interval after the 
conjunctions, then only some valid chronological inferences might be 
drawn from it. 

If confidence may be given to the Chinese records, a new star 
was visible in February and March, 749, and again in April, 750. 


1* 


10 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAY. 


Pingré says there were two comets, —one in 749, and one m 750. 
Wieseler, assuming that there was but one, argues that this star or 
comet was the star of the Magi, and that when it appeared they 
began their journey. He thus obtains a definite date, and infers that 
the Lord was born early in 750. It is plain that this has little chrono- 
logical value. 

But another view of this star has been taken by many,— that it was 
aot one of the heavenly orbs, but some extraordinary luminous appear- 
ance like a star, which, having served its purpose in guiding the Magi 
to Bethlehem, vanished forever. (Many of the early fathers ascribed 
the movements of this supernatural body to angelic activity,— seea 
Lapide in loco ; a view which Chemnitz favors, and as confirmatory 
refers to the angel and to the glory of the Lord shining around the 
shepherds.) In favor of this view is the statement (Matthew ii. 9) that 
the star went before them and stood over where the child was. It 
is observed by Mill (805, note) that ‘‘this, literally interpreted, can- 
not possibly be understood of any star so called, but of a meteoric 
body moving in the region of the terrene atmosphere.” And this 
seems to be the meaning of Augustine in calling it a new star whose 
purpose — ministerium officti— was fulfilled when it led them to the 
house of the infant Lord. On the other hand, many deny any men- 
tion in the narrative of a miraculous star. (So Weiss.) 

But if this be accepted, we must still bring this luminous appear- 
ance into some relations of time with the conjunctions whose date we 
know, or, as regards our present inquiry, we gain nothing. But of 
such relations we are ignorant. We can only say that, if later than 
the conjunctions, it must have appeared sometime during or after 
December, 747. 

Most recent writers take the view that these conjunctions, though 
they were not the star itself, were of importance in awaking the 
attention of the Magi, who were students of the heavens, and thus 
preparing them to watch for some more positive sign. This they 
found in the star appearing later, whether that star may have been 
a transient one, such as seen by Kepler, or a comet, or a meteor, or a 
luminous body specially prepared for this end. In this case, the con- 
junctions defined the earliest period of the Lord’s birth, and as we 
have the other terminus—the death of Herod—His birth must be 
placed in the interval 747-750. 

Datum 6.— Many have found a more definite chronological datum 
in the statement of Matthew (ii. 16), that Herod, after the departure 
of the Magi, slew all the children of Bethlehem ‘‘ from two years old 
and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of 


DATE OF THE LORD’S BIRTH. iW 


the wise men.” The inference is drawn that the appearing of the star 
must have been two years before their arrival in Jerusalem. (So 
Munter and many.) There are too many uncertain elements here to 
make this datum of the two years of much value. What was the star? 
What event did the star denote? Was it prophetic, foretelling the 
Lord’s birth? In this case it may have appeared one, or two, or more 
years before the nativity. Did it follow the birth? If so, by what 
interval? It is by no means certain what the Magi understooa it to 
denote, though more probably the birth. Nor do we know that 
Herod had the same understanding as they. But if he believed that 
it appeared at the time of the Lord’s birth, did he ascertain how soon 
after its appearing they began their journey; and how long they were 
on the way? He may have done so, but as he counted on their re- 
turn to him from Bethlehem with definite information as to the child 
they had seen, it was not necessary that he should do this. All that 
we can say is, that unable to obtain from them personally the in- 
formation he sought, he meant to be sure that the infant should 
not escape him, and to this end orders that all the children within 
the limits in any way indicated by the star, should be killed.* 

Datum 7.— Still another datum on which some rely, is the exist- 
ence of general peace throughout the world at the Lord’s birth. This 
peace is supposed to have been foretold by the prophets, and its realiz- 
ation announced by the angels in their song on the night of the 
nativity (Luke ii. 14), ‘‘Glory to God in the highest, and on earth 
peace, good will toward men.” With this is joined the closing of the 
temple of Janus by Augustus, the sign of peace throughout the Roman 
Empire. It is known that this temple was twice closed by him, in 
725, in 729, and probably also a third time, though the year is not cer- 
tainly determined. ‘‘ We know no more concerning it than this: 
that 744 sub jinem, it was intended to have taken place, but was 
delayed a little longer by some unimportant commotions among the 
Daci and Dalmat.”? In the absence of exact information, we can 
say no more than that there was a period of general tranquillity 
throughout the Roman world for five or six years, or probably from 


1 Greswell, ii. 185, would understand by children of two years those of thirteen months 
only. All older than this were exempt. But this is doubtful, and is unnecessary. 
Browne, Ordo Sxclorum, 52, explains Herod’s order from the fact the star appeared two. 
years before the nativity. 

2Greswell, i. 469. See Patritius, iii. 165. According to Sepp and Browne, it was 
closed from 746-752; to Ammer and Greswell, from 748 or 749-752 or 753; to Jarvis, from 
746-758. Wieseler makes the order to shut it to have issued in 748, but its execution to 
have been delayed till 752. 


12 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAY. 


746 to 752, during which period the Lord was born. We cannot, 
without building on conjecture, reach any more exact result.’ 

To sum up the results of our inquiries, we find that the birth of 
the Lord was not later than April, 750, and probably not later than 
January. The time in this direction is limited by the death of Herod 
in April of that year, and the events immediately preceding it. On 
the other hand, if we give to the conjunction of planets in 747 as 
connected with the visit of the Magi, any chronological value, we 
cannot put His birth earlier than that year. Again, if we understand 
the statement of Tertullian, that the enrollment which brought Joseph 
and Mary to Bethlehem was under Saturninus as governor, He may 
have been born in 746 or 747 or 748. But if the enrollment was under 
Varus, He may have been born in 749 or in the first half of 750. And 
as He was about thirty years of age at the beginning of His ministry, 
and the date of His first Passover after its beginning was 780, we reach 
the year 749. We have thus to choose between the years 747, 748, 
749, and the beginning of 750. The probabilities are in favor of 749, 
and in our further examinations we shall assume this as the year of 
His birth. 

We give the opinions of some of the older and of the more modern 
chronologists and commentators: 

For the year 747, Sanclemente, Wurm, Ideler, Minter, Sepp, Jar- 
vis, Alford, Patritius, Ebrard, Zumpt, Keim; 748, Kepler, Lewin; 
749, Petavius, Usher, Norris, Tillemont, Lichtenstein, Ammer, Fried- 
lieb, Bucher, Browne, Godet, McClellan; 750, Bengel, Wieseler, 
Greswell, Ellicott, Pressensé, Thomson; for 751, Keil, Quandt; 752, 
Caspari, Reiss; Lardner hesitates between 748 and 749; so Robinson, 
‘‘not later than the autumn of 749, perhaps a year earlier”; so 
Beyschlag, Schenkel; Pound, ‘‘ August 749-August 750.” Clinton 
finds the earliest possible date the autumn of 748, the latest that of 
750; Woolsey, undecided. 


TIME OF THE YEAR. 


Datum 1.—We proceed to inquire in what part of the year the 
Lord was born. The only direct datum which the Gospels give us 
is found in the statement of Luke (i. 5), that Zacharias ‘‘ was of the 
course of Abia.” It is known that the priests were divided into 
twenty-four classes, each of which officiated at the temple in its turn 
fora week.? This order, originally established by David, was broken 








1 For recent discussions leading to the same general conclusion, see Woolsey in Bib. 
Sacra, 1870, 322; Zumpt, 232; others, as Sepp, i. 182, attach more chronological import 
ance to it. 

2 1 Chron., xxiv. 1-19; Lightfoot, ix. 44. 


DATE OF THE LORD’S BIRTH. 13 


up by the captivity. The four classes that returned from Babylon 
were divided anew by Ezra into twenty-four, to which the old names 
were given. Another interruption was made by the invasion of 
Antiochus, but the old order was restored by the Maccabees. Of 
these courses that of Jehoiarib was the first, that of Abia the eighth. 
We need, therefore, only to know a definite time at which any one of 
the courses was officiating to be able to trace the succession. Such a 
datum we find in the Talmudical statements, supported by Josephus, ' 
that at the destruction of the temple by Titus on the 5th August, 
823, the first class had just entered on its course. Its period of serv- 
ice was from the evening of the 4th August, which was the Sabbath, 
to the evening of the following Sabbath, on the 11th August. We 
can now easily compute backward, and ascertain at what time in any 
given year each class was officiating. 

If now we take the year 749 as the probable year of Christ’s 
birth, the appearance of the angel to Zacharias announcing John’s 
birth must be placed in 748. In this year we find by computation 
that the course of Abia, or the eighth course, officiated from the 
17-23d April, and again from the 3-9th October.” At each of these 
periods, therefore, was Zacharias at Jerusalem. If the annunciation 
of the angel was made to him during the former, the birth of John 
may be placed near the beginning of 749, and the Lord’s birth about 
six months later, or near the middle of 749; if the annunciation was 
made during the latter, John’s birth was near the middle of 749, and 
the Lord’s birth near its end. 

The fact that we do not know how soon after the completion of 
the ministry of Zacharias the conception of John is to be placed, pre- 
vents any very exact statement of dates. Luke (i. 24) uses only the 
~ general expression ‘‘ after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived.” 
Yet the tenor of the narrative leads us to believe that it was soon 
after his return to his home, and may be placed in either of the months 
April or October, 748. Counting onward fifteen months we reach 
June and December, 749, in one of which the Lord’s birth is to be 
placed. The Greek church celebrates it on the 23d September. 
(Tillemont, i. 145, note.) : 

It is a very obvious objection to the chronological value of these 
conclusions, that if we take another year we reach other results. As 
said by Godet: ‘‘ Everything depends upon our knowledge of the 
year of the Lord’s birth.” Thus Lewin (109), taking 748 as the year 


1 War, vi. 4.5. 
2 So Wieseler. 143: Licht., 76; Friedlieb, 80; Browne, 35. Greswell, i. 434, Sept. 30 
—Oct.7. Edersheim, i, 135. 


14 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAY. 


of the Nativity, finds that in 747 the course of Abia was on duty from 
the 16th to the 20th May, and if we place the conception of John the 
Baptist about the end of May, he was born in February, 748, and the 
Lord about the first of August of the same year. Upon this datum 
that Zacharias was of the course of Abia, Edersheim places some 
reliance, butis not sure (ii. 705). McClellan, 391, relies on it with much 
confidence as proving that the Nativity was about December 25, 749. 
If we find reason on other grounds to put the Nativity in 749, the 
argument from the course of Abia helps to confirm it. 

Datum 2. —In choosing between these months — June and Decem- 
ber — some weight is to be given to the statement of Luke (ii. 8) that 
in the night when the Lord was born shepherds were in the field 
keeping watch over their flock, Does not this rather point to the 
summer than to the winter, to June than to December? To answer 
this we must make some inquiries respecting the climate of Juda. 
Travelers in Palestine differ widely in their meteorological accounts, 
nor is this to be wondered at, as the seasons vary greatly in different 
years, and each traveler can speak only of what falls under his own 
personal observation. Instead, therefore, of trying to reach some 
general conclusions from such isolated accounts, we shall take the 
statements of those who, having resided some time in Jerusalem, give 
us the results of their observations for several successive years. And 
we note first the statements of Schwartz’ and Barclay.” 

The year is divided into two seasons, summer and winter, or the 
dry and the wet. ‘he winter rains begin to fall in the latter part of 
October or beginning of November. The most rainy month is Feb- 
ruary. During the months of December, January, February, and 
March, there is no entire cessation of rain for any long interval; ‘‘ yet 
an interregnum of several weeks’ dry weather generally occurs be- 
tween the middle of December and the middle of February, somewhat 
distinguishing the former rains of theseason from the latter.”* ‘* The 
average monthly temperature during four years from 1851 was, for 
November, 63.8°; December, 54.5°; January, 49.4°; February, 54.4°; 
March, 55.7°."* ‘‘The temperature of Palestine averages during 
the winter 50° to 534°.” * Of the month of December the following 
account is given: ‘The earth fully clothed with rich verdure. 
Wheat and barley still sown, also various kinds of pulse. Sugar-cane 
in market. Cauliflowers, cabbages, radishes, lettuce, lentiles, ete. 
Ploughing still continues at intervals.”° ‘‘ Temperature same as 


1 Descriptive Geography of Palestine, 325-331. 
2 City of the Great King, 414-429. 8 Barclay. 
4 Barclay. 5 Schwartz. 6 Barclay. 


DATE OF THE LORD'S BIRTH. 15 


preceding month. The sowing of grain in the field has already com- 
menced. Although the oranges and kindred fruit have been long 
since ripe, they continue to mature on the trees till toward April and 
May.”: February is the coldest part of the year, and fires are used 
by the Frank population, though little by the natives, and snow and 
ice are occasionally seen. 

These statements are confirmed, in general, by the latest and best 
authorities.?> From these we select the observations of Dr. Chaplin 
made at Jerusalem for a period of twenty-one years, from 1861-1882. 
(Qt. St. 1883, p. 8, ff.) Speaking of the rainy season, he says there 
are three times of rain: 1. The early rain, beginning in October and 
extending to the middle of December; 2. the copious winter rain, 
from the middle of December to the middle of March; 3. the latter 
or spring rain, from the middle of March to May. The mean dura- 
tion of the rainy season is 188 days; of the dry, 177. For the three 
winter months, December, January, and February, the average num- 
ber of rainy days was as follows: December, 9.04; Jauary, 10.18; 
February, 10.43. ‘‘ During the rainy season rain falls on one or more 
days, and is followed on one or more days by fine weather; and, 
therefore, these days of the winter and early spring months are some of 
the most enjoyable that the climate of Palestine affords.”* As to the 
temperature of these years, his observations give a mean of 62.8°: 
in February, the coldest month, 47.9°; in August, 76.1°. The lowest 
temperature for these twenty years was, in January, 25° Fahr. In 
fourteen of these years was snow, in eight none. In December the 
highest temperature, 73°; the lowest, 36°. On the 20th of Decem- 
ber, 1879, snow fell to the depth of seventeen inches. But, from 
1861-82, snow fell only three times in December (Table 12). In 
Jerusalem frost generally occurs on five or six nights in the course of 
the winter, but it is rare for ice to remain through the day, except in 
cold situations, and sheltered from the sun. 

It should be said that Dr. Chaplin took his observations in a gar- 
den within the city; and he remarks: ‘‘It is no doubt often much 
cooler on the hills eastward.” 

Although these observations have special reference to Jerusalem, 
they apply equally well to Bethlehem, the climate of which is not 
unlike that of Jerusalem, though, according to Tobler, somewhat 
milder. On the 10th of February, 1887, snow was lying on the 
higher mountains beyond Bethlehem, and there were heavy frosts for 
several nights in Jerusalem (Qt. St., April, 1887). 


1 Schwartz. , 
2 Winer, ii. 691; Raumer, 77; Robinson, ii. 428; Tobler, Denkblitter, iii., etc. 
3 As to the rainfall in Palestine, see Rice in Journ. Bib. Lit. & Ex., June, 1886. 


16 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAY. 


There seems, then, so far as climate is concerned, no good ground 
to affirm that shepherds could not have been pasturing their flocks 
in the field during the month of December. As we have seen, Bar- 
clay states that in this month the earth is fully clothed with rich 
verdure, and there is generally an interval of dry weather between 
the middle of December and the middle of February. Schubert' 
says that the period about Christmas is often one of the loveliest 
periods of the whole year. Tobler says, the weather about Christmas 
is favorable to the feeding of flocks, and often most beautiful. ‘‘On 
the 27th December, 1845, we had very agreeable weather.”? It is 
during this month that the wind begins to blow from the south or 
southwest, which, according to Schwartz, ‘‘ brings rain and betokens 
warm weather,” and thus hastens forward vegetation. 

Unless, then, the climate of Judza has become in the lapse of 
years much warmer than of old, the flocks may have been feeding in 
the fields of Bethlehem in the month of December. But, according 
to Arago,* there has been no important change for the last three 
thousand and three hundred years. Nor do the incidental notices of 
Scripture conflict with this. The Lord’s words, ‘‘ Pray that your flight 
be not in the winter,” are easily understood when we remember that 
winter is the rainy season, and most unfavorable for journeying. That 
a fire was made at a much later period of the year (John xviii. 18) is 
plainly an exceptional case, and for this reason mentioned. ‘‘ Strong, 
and at times cold winds prevail in April.’’* 

There remains to be noticed a saying of the Talmudists, that the 
flocks were taken to the fields in March and brought home in Novem- 
ber. But this had reference to those pastures that were found in the 
wilderness far away from the cities or villages, and were resorted to 
by the shepherds during the summer months. ‘‘ The spring coming 
on, they drove their beasts into wildernesses or champaign grounds, 
where they fed them the whole summer. The winter coming on, they 
betook themselves home again with the flocks and herds.” * 

Edersheim (i. 187, note) refers to another Rabbinic authority, 
which says that the flocks, fed in the wilderness, remained there all the 
year round. The inference, therefore, drawn by many, that this flock 
being kept through the night in the field, it could not have been so 
late as December, is without ground. And, if the flock was near 
Bethlehem, having been brought in from the wilderness, it would 
show that this was after November, and in one of the winter 
months. 


1 Quoted by Wieseler, 148. 2So Ritter, Theil, xvi. 480. 
3In Winer, ii. 692. *Schwartz. 
§ Lightfoot, on Luke ii. 8. 


—— 


DATE OF THE LORD’S BIRTH. 17 


The question is raised by Edersheim, whether this flock was an 
ordinary one, and the shepherds ordinary shepherds; or, one 
reserved for temple sacrifices, and the shepherds its keepers? If the 
last, the presence of the flock at Bethlehem gives in itself no indication 
of the time of the year. The point will be considered when the birth 
of the Lord is spoken of in its historical relations. 

If, then, we have to choose between the months of December and 
June, the balance of probabilities is in favor of the former. As the 
spring rains cease in April, the whole country soon becomes dry and 
barren. Of May, Barclay (423) remarks: ‘‘ Vegetation having at- 
tained its maximum, now begins rapidly to decline for want of 
rain;” and of June, ‘‘ Herbage becoming parched, the nomad Arabs 
begin to move northward with their flocks.” 

As the early tradition of the Church designated this month as the 
time of the Lord’s birth, it has been generally accepted, but not 
universally. Lightfoot makes it to have been in September; New- 
come, in October; Paulus, in March; Wieseler, in February; Lichten- 
stein, in June; Greswell, in April; Clinton, in spring; Lardner and 
Robinson, in autumn; Strong and Lewin, in August; Quandt, in 
May. 

Day oF THE Monts. 


If we accept the month of December, the day of the month still 
remains undetermined. If we place the ministry of Zacharias in 
Jerusalem from the 3d to 9th October, 748, and the conception of 
John soon after, the sixth month of Elisabeth (Luke i. 36) would 
extend from the middle of March to the middle of April. During 
this period was the annunciation to Mary, and the Lord’s birth must 
then be placed between the middle of December, 749, and the middle 
of January, 750. A more definite result we cannot reach, except we 
receive the traditional date of the 25th of December. The origin 
and value of this tradition we proceed to consider. 

It is now generally granted that the day of the nativity was not 
observed as a feast in any part of the Church, east or west, till some 
time in the fourth century.' If any day had been earlier fixed upon 
as the Lord’s birthday, it was not commemorated by any religious 
rites, nor is it mentioned by any writers. The observance of the 25th 
Decemher is ascribed to Julius, Bishop of Rome, A.D. 337-352. It is 
mentioned as observed under his successor, Liberius, A.D. 352-366. 


1So Clinton. ‘Not only was the day unknown, but for 300 years after the ascension 
no day was set apart for the commemoration of the birth of Christ.’’ Binterim, Denk- 
wirdigkeiten, v. 1. 328, asserts that the feast was celebrated much earlier, but his proofs 
are not convincing, 


18 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAY. 


In the Eastern Church till this time, the 6th January had been ob- 
served as the day of the Lord’s baptism, and had been regarded also 
as the day of His birth, it being inferred from Luke iii, 23, that He 
was just thirty when baptized. It was only by degrees that a dis- 
anction began to be made between the date of His birth and that of 
His baptism, and that each began to be observed upon different days. 
Chrysostom’ states that it was only within ten years that the 25th 
December had been made known to them by the Western Church as 
the day of His nativity, but asserts that through the public records 
of the taxing (Luke ii. 1-4) preserved at Rome, it had long been 
known to the Christians of that city. From this time, about the end 
of the fourth century, this day was commemorated as the birthday 
both in the east and west. The ground of its non-observance for so 
long a time is explained by the fact that in His birth He humbled 
Himself, and His glory was hidden. Those acts of God were com- 
memorated in which His glory was revealed. The first of these was 
the visit of the Magi and their adoration; the second, the descent of 
the Holy Ghost at His baptism, and the voice from heaven; the third, 
the exhibition of His power in changing the water into wine. It is 
certain that down to the middle of the fourth century, the Orientals, 
if they commemorated the birthday at all, commemorated it with the 
Epiphany on the 6th January. (Binterim, v. 1. 530.) 

Thus we have in favor of the 25th December, the fact that the 
Eastern Churches were induced to adopt it, and to transfer to it the 
feast which they had before observed upon the 6th of January. We 
can scarce think this done without some good chronological grounds, 
real or supposed. But we do not know what these grounds were. 
Some? ascribe great importance to the statements of Justin Martyr, 
Tertullian, and Chrysostom, that in the public archives at Rome a 
registry existed of the census under Augustus, by which the Lord’s 
birthday was conclusively established. Jarvis supposes Tertullian to 
give the very words of the enrollment as he found them in the Roman 
archives, in which Mary is mentioned as the mother of Jesus — Maria 
ex qua nascitur Christus. Thus the day being proved by the register 
at Rome, the knowledge of it gradually spread to the Eastern 
Churches. But most chronologists have regarded these statements 
as of little value.* 

1 Antioch, A. D. 386. 2So Jarvis, 370 and 537. 

3See Kingsley in New Englander, April, 1847, who says that they are not referred to by 
Baronius, or Pagi, or Causabon, or relied on by Usher or Newcome. ‘In the time of 
Julius Caesar it [the vernal equinox] corresponded to the 25th of March, in the sixteenth 
century it had retrograded to the 1ith. By suppressing ten days in the calendar, Greg- 


ory [in 1582] restored the equinox to the 2ist of March, the day on which it fell at the 
time of the Council of Nice in 325." Dr. Barnard in Johnson's Cyclopedia, Art. Calendar. 


DATE OF THE LORD’S BIRTH. 19 


The fact that the tradition, which placed the Lord’s birth on the 
25th December, also placed the birth of John Baptist on the 24th 
June preceding, the annunciation to the virgin on the 25th March, 
and the day of Elisabeth’s conception on the 24th September. or on the 
four cardinal points of the year, has led many to suppose that these 
periods were selected with reference to their astronomical signifi- 
cance, rather than as the real dates of these events. It strengthens 
this supposition that so many of the Christian festivals were placed 
upon days remarkable in the Julian calendar. Noting these facts, 
Sir Isaac Newton! inferred that ‘*these days were fixed in the first 
Christian calendars by mathematicians at pleasure, without regard to 
tradition, and that the Christians afterward took up what they found 
in the calendars.” More probable is the supposition that these dates 
were in part selected as the times of Christian feasts, in order to 
serve as a counterpoise to the corresponding heathen festivals, and in 
part because of their typical meaning. It does not appear that the 
feast of the nativity can be directly connected with any heathen 
festival, for the connection between this day and the dies natalis solis 
invicti, cannot be proved; but as the winter solstice, its bearings are 
often typically interpreted by the fathers.2 Thus the words of John 
Baptist spoken of Christ (John iii. 30), ‘‘He must increase but I 
must decrease,” are applied to the fact that, at John’s birth in June 
24th, or the summer solstice, the days began to decrease in length, 
but at Christ’s birth, December 25th, the days began to increase. 
Thus Augustine*: Hodie natus est Johannes, quo incipiunt decrescere 
dies —eo die natus Christus, quo crescere. 

While such typical applications naturally tend to beget doubts 
whether the dates so connected with the great astronomical epochs of 
of the year have any historic foundation, yet on the other hand it 
should be borne in mind that if the 25th December were actually the 
Lord’s birthday, the events preceding it, the conception of John, the 
annunciation to Mary, and the birth of John, must have taken place 
nearly at the times which tradition has assigned. And it deserves to 
be considered, that the hour of His birth, who is Lord of all, was 
not matter of accident, but divinely appointed. What season of the 
year might be most fitting to so great an event, or whether, astro- 
nomically viewed, the winter solstice has any such fitness, are ques- 
tions not necessary to be answered here. It is at least not unreasona- 


1 Observations upon Daniel and Apoc. 

2Sepp, i. 200. Caspari, 71. ‘‘In the first Christian centuries the 25th December was 
looked upon as the day of the winter solstice.” 

*Homil., 3. 


20 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAY. 


ble to believe, that the sun in its course may typify Him who is the 
Sun of righteousness, and the year in its seasons foreshadow the 
epochs of His life. 

The strongest argument against the 25th December, if the birth 
be put in 749, is that it leaves too little space for the events that 
occurred before Herod's death. This death was about the 1st of 
April, 750; we thus have a little more than three months. In this 
period were the visit of the Magi, the presentation at the Temple, 
the flight into Egypt; how soon after Herod’s death was the return 
from Egypt, is to be later considered. If, according to general 
tradition, the Magi came on the 6th January or 13th day after the 
Lord’s birth, and the presentation was on the 40th, or early in Feb. 
ruary, He went down into Egypt about two months before Herod’s 
death. Those who put the coming of the Magi on the 6th January, 
the flight into Egypt immediately after, and the presentation upon the 
return after Herod’s death, gain another month. If, however, we 
follow the order of most modern harmonists, and put the visit of the 
Magi after the presentation on the 40th day, the time of the sojourn 
in Egypt up to Herod’s death was a little less than two months. 

Those who put the Lord’s birth in 747 or 748, make the period 
spent in Egypt much longer — some three years, some two, some one, 
some six months. Those who put the birth later than the 25th 
December, 749, and Herod’s death in April, 750, make the sojourn 
but three to four weeks, or less; Wieseler and Ellicott only about a 
fortnight. There is nothing in Matthew’s narration, or the cireum- 
stances of the case, that makes it probable He was there more than a 
few weeks. There does not, therefore, appear any good reason why 
all the events he narrates may not have taken place between the 25th 
December and the following 1st of April. 

Our inquiries lead us, then, to these general results. We find it 
most probable that the Lord was born near the end of the year 749. 
At this period all the chronological statements of the Evangelists 
seem most readily to center and harmonize. In favor of December, 
the last month of that year, as much may be said as in favor of any 
other, and this aside from the testimony of tradition. As to the day, 
little that is definite can be said. The 25th of this month lies open 
to the suspicion of being selected on other than historic grounds, yet 
it is not inconsistent with any data we have, and has the voice of 
tradition in its favor. Still, in regard to all these conclusions, it 
must be remembered that many elements of uncertainty enter into the 
computations, and that any positive statements are impossible. Ali 
who have attempted the task, will say with Bynaeus: Frustra hic 


DATE OF THE LORD’S BAPTISM. 21 


omnem operam consumt. It is well said by Spanheim: Sed cum hae de 
re altum apud Evangelistas sit silentium, nec Apostolice Ecclesie vel 
sanctionem, vel praxin legamus, cause nihil est, cur temere definiamus 
quod solide definiri non potest. 


Il. DATE OF THE LORD’S BAPTISM. 


We have seen that the Lord was about thirty years old when He 
began His ministry; and as this followed immediately upon His 
baptism, He was about thirty when He was baptized. If born, as we 
have supposed, at the end of 749, His baptism may be put in 779, or 
in 780. The only data we have to determine the time are, the year 
of the Passover, which followed His baptism (John ii. 13); and the 
statement of Luke, that John began his ministry in the fifteenth year 
of Tiberius Caesar (Luke iii. 1). The other data here given by Luke 
are too general to be of value in this inquiry. 

Datum 1.—The Lord’s first Passover. This we have seen to be 
that of 780. His baptism was some time before this, how long 
depends upon the time necessary for the intervening events. After 
the baptism was the temptation of forty days, the return to the 
Jordan, and the gathering of His first disciples, His visit to Cana, 
His sojourn at Capernaum, and His journey up to the Passover, which 
fell this year on the 9th April. All this, we may say, would occupy 
about two or three months. (Chronicon Paschale 76 days, Friedlieb 
87, Greswell 64.) Counting backward from the Passover, we may 
then put the baptism at the end of 779, or very early in 780. 

Datum 2.—The fifteenth year of Tiberius. Before asking to 
what year of the Lord’s life this would bring us, we must ask what is 
meant by the statement, that ‘‘the word of God came to John in the 
wilderness” ? (Luke iii. 1.) The obvious meaning is, that he then 
began his ministry; but because of chronological difficulties, of which 
we shall soon speak, it has been referred to other events affecting 
directly the Lord Himself and His ministry. Three interpretations 
have had their advocates. 

1. Sanclemente regards the statements of Luke (iii. 1, 2) as a 
general heading of his theme —the sufferings and death of Christ. 
He attempts to show (as cited by Wieseler, 196, note) that the fif- 
teenth year of Tiberius ‘‘non ad initium ministerti Joannis, non ad 
baptismum a Christo in Jordane susceptum, sed ad ipsius passionis et 
crucifizionis tempus ipso evangelista duce atque interprete esse referendum.” 

Browne (92), who makes the Lord’s ministry to have lasted but 
little more than a year, adopted this explanation in a modified form. 
“The heading of St. Luke’s third chapter contains the date, not of 


22 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAY. 


the mission of St. John the Baptist, but of the year of our Lord's 
ministry, especially in reference to the great events with which it 
closed.” But this interpretation is accepted by few, and is manifestly 
a makeshift. 

2. That the imprisonment of the Baptist was the event chiefly 
meant, and therewith the beginning of the Lord’s ministry. (Matt. 
iv. 12.) This was advocated by Wieseler (Synopsis, 196), taking 
the same ground as Sanclemente, that Luke’s chronological statement 
was a general heading for all that followed. (In his Beitrage, 177, he 
has since given up this view.) It was accepted by Ellicott (104, note). 
‘The fifteenth year of Tiberius coincides not with the first appear- 
ance, but with the captivity of John.” That it was early so under- 
stood, is said to be shown by Eusebius (iii. 24) when he says, that 
the Synoptists ‘‘only wrote the deeds of our Lord for one year after 
the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and intimated this in the very 
beginning of their history.” 

8. That the event referred to is the Lord’s baptism. This is 
advocated by Zumpt (247), who, however, includes in this the 
Baptist’s ministry, whose beginning is not defined by any single act, 
but which culminated in the baptism of Jesus; and for this reason, 
Luke gives this chronological datum. (So Caspari, 110, who says it 
was not the commencement of John’s ministry, but a later call.) If 
the Lord was baptized very soon after John’s ministry began, the 
fifteenth year of Tiberius might include both events. 

But it is better to keep to the obvious sense of the words, and we 
therefore conclude, in common with the great body of chronologists 
and commentators, that Luke designs to refer the fifteenth year of 
Tiberius to the beginning of the Baptist’s ministry. How long that 
ministry may have preceded the Lord’s baptism, is to be later considered. 

We must now turn to the second point — from what period is the 
fifteenth year of Tiberius to be reckoned? Tiberius was the step-son 
of the emperor Augustus, and was formally adopted by him in 757. 
After filling several high stations in the civil and military service, 
he was associated with him in the general administration of the em- 
pire in 764 or 765. Upon the death of Augustus, on the 19th of 
August, 767, he became sole ruler. Thus there are two periods from 
which his rule or administration may be reckoned: that when he was 
associated with Augustus, and that when he began to rulealone. To 
which of these periods does Luke refer? If to the former, the fif-. 
teenth year of his government was that of 779-780; if the latter, of 
781-782. If we accept the latter date, and John began his ministry 
in August, the baptism of Jesus must be put in 782. 


DATE OF THE LORD’S BAPTISM, ee 


But we have seen that the Lord was about thirty when He was 
baptized; and as John had been active some time before, to this the 
period, longer or shorter, of his activity, must be added. Let us then 
say that John began his work in August or September, 781, and that 
the Lord was baptized some three months later, or near the beginning 
of 782. But we have accepted, on grounds already given, His 
baptism as before the Passover, 780, and have thus a discrepancy of 
two years. Again, we have placed His birth at the end of 749; add 
to this thirty years, His age at His baptism, and we reach 179 or 780, 
and thus again there is a discrepancy of two years. If born in 748 or 
747, He was now, in 782, thirty-four or thirty-five, which presents a 
still greater difficulty. 

We find here the ground of the perplexity of the early Christian 
chronologists and commentators. Counting the fifteenth of Tiberius 
from the death of Augustus, they reached the year from August, 781 
to August, 782, as the first of the Lord’s ministry, and He was then 
about thirty years of age. (If Luke counted, after the Jewish 
method, from Nisan to Nisan, this would make little difference, since 
from Nisan to August is only five months.) It was, therefore, neces- 
sary that they should put the birth of the Lord as late as possible, 
and it was very generally placed in 752 in order that He might be 
about thirty at His baptism. 

The importance of this date, and the many difficulties connected 
with it, demand that we give to it a more particular examination. 
Three points claim our attention. First. The fact of Tiberius’ asso- 
ciation with Augustus in the government of the empire. This fact 
is beyond all doubt. The direct evidence is found in Tacitus, Sue- 
tonius, and Paterculus, and there are incidental allusions to it in 
several other writers.’ Tacitus says? ‘‘that on him every honor 
was accumulated; he was adopted by Augustus for his son, assumed 
colleague in the empire, and presented to the several armies.” He 
relates also that Tiberius, in reply to the request of the Senate to take 
the government, said that ‘‘ Augustus only was capable of so mighty 
a charge, that for himself, having been called by him to a participa- 
tion of his cares, he had learned by experience how difficult to bear, 
and how subject to fortune was the burden of the general administra- 
tion ’— regendicuncta. In like manner, Suetonius® says that ‘‘ Augus- 
tus ordered that Tiberius should be named as his colleague.”— collegaum 


1See Lardner, i. 355. 

2Ann.,i.3. See alsoi.7. ‘Mam Tiberius cuncta per consules incipiebat, tanguam 
vetere republica et ambiguus imperandi. Ne edictum quidem, quo patres in curiam, 
tocabat, nist tribuniciae potestatis praescriptione possit sub Augusto acceptae.”’ 

2 August., 97, 


24 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAY. 


suum Tiberium nuncupare jussit. He mentions also a law promul. 
gated by the consuls that ‘‘ Tiberius, jointly with Augustus, should 
rule in the provinces and also take the census,”— wt provincias cum 
Augusto communiter administraret, simulque censum ageret. Paterculus 
(103), alluding to his adoption by Augustus, represents himself as 
unable to describe the joy of that day; the great concourse of all 
ranks of the people, and their hopes and prayers. He mentions also 
the triumph due him because of his victories in Pannonia and 
Dalmatia, and which was celebrated with great magnificence, after 
the Senate and people of Rome, on a request being made by his father 
that he might be invested with authority equal to his own — wt 
aequum ei jus in omnibus provinciis exercitibusque esset, quam erat ipsi, 
—had passed a decree to that effect. Paterculus adds, as his own 
comment, that it would have been unreasonable if he could not have 
ruled what he had secured. 

Thus the fact is abundantly established that Augustus did for- 
mally associate Tiberius with himself in the rule of the empire. At 
his request, a decree to this effect was passed by the Senate and peo- 
ple. Nor was Tiberius a colleague in name merely. Augustus, very 
aged, and now sinking under bodily infirmities, was almost wholly 
under the control of his wife, the mother of Tiberius, while the 
latter was in the prime of life, active and energetic. In the very 
nature of the case, Tiberius, from the time of his colleagueship the 
recognized successor to the imperial throne, must have been a con- 
spicuous and influential person, and, we may perhaps say, the emperor 
de facto, although the name and prestige remained with Augustus till 
his death. That upon this event he did not openly and immediately 
act as emperor, but paid court to the Senate as if the Republic still 
existed, and as if he were irresolute about assuming the sovereign 
rule, is attributable to the peculiar political circumstances of the 
times, and also to his haughty temper, that chose rather to ascribe 
his elevation to the voice of the people than to the intrigues of his 
mother, and to the favor of a weak, superannuated old man. 

Second. When was Tiberius thus made colleague with Augustus? 
Most chronologists agree in placing the decree of the Senate, already 
alluded to, near the end of 764 or beginning of 765.1 We may 
accept this as the true date. Taking, then, the year 765, from Jan- 
uary to January, as the first of Tiberius, the fifteenth is the year 
779, from January to January. Some time, then, in 779, is the 
beginning of John’s ministry to be placed. 

Third. Isit probable that Luke would compute the reign of Tibe- 








1$0 Gres., Wiesel., Licht., Rob., Sepp, 


DATE OF THE LORD’S BAPTISM. 25 


rius from his colleagueship? It is admitted that the Roman histo- 
rians, Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio Cassius, compute it from the death of 
Augustus, and that they should do so is easily explainable, since the 
death of an emperor after the order of imperial succession had been 
once established, formed a marked epoch from which to count the 
reign of his successor, and was an event interesting all parts of the 
empire. and universally known. But notwithstanding this, other 
methods of computation, as by consulships, continued in use for many 
years. (See Wies., Beitrige, 186.) It seems to be unquestionable that 
a two-.0ld computation took place in case of some of the later em- 
perors. A coin exists bearing the inscription, ‘‘ In the eleventh holy 
year of the government of the emperor Titus.” As he lived only two 
years after his father’s death, the other nine years must refer to his joint 
rule with his father. But Luke, writing not a political but a religious 
history, and to whose purpose the succession of the emperors was of 
no moment, could well speak of Tiberius as de facto the ruler at the 
time and in the region of which he speaks. He was not ignorant 
that there were two modes of computing Herod’s reign, and the 
reigns of his sons; and whether he thought of the sole rule of Tibe- 
rius, or of his co-regency, would in all likelihood have been determined 
by the fact of his residence at Rome or ina province. Asa provincial, 
he would naturally see in Tiberius the acting head of the empire. 

It is said also that there is no proof that this mode of computation 
was known to any of the Fathers. Clemens of Alexandria does, how- 
ever, mention that according to one mode of computing Tiberius reigned 
twenty-two years, which, if it be not a numerical error, as regarded 
by Zumpt, 284, indicates a two-fold beginning of hisreign. Whether 
the Fathers in general were ignorant that the reign of Tiberius might 
be reckoned from his co-regency, is doubtful. Lardner reasons that 
they must have known it, because as they almost universally placed 
the crucifixion in the fifteenth year, they must have seen how incon- 
sistent it was with Luke’s statement, who placed the beginning of 
John’s ministry in that year. 

In regard to Josephus, it has been said that he refers to the col- 
leagueship when he states (Antiq., xviii. 4. 6.) that ‘‘ Tiberius died 
after he himself had held the government twenty-two years — 
oxav abrds Thy dpxyjv. The most obvious construction of this phrase 
is that which refers it to his sole administration in contradistinction 
to his colleagueship. (Hofmann in Licht., 129.) 

It is only justice to any historian that he should be interpreted so 
as to be consistent with himself, if possible. And he has a higher 
tlaim to this if he shows himself in general, as Luke undoubtedly 


2 


26 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAY, 


does, to be painstaking, accurate, and well-informed. Of the chro- 
nological data given by Luke we must take some leading one as regu- 
lative, with which he clearly intended the rest to be in harmony. 
If we take the datum of the fifteenth year of Tiberius, as beginning 
at the death of Augustus, and make it the chronological norm, we 
cannot bring his other data into harmony with it. He is inconsistent 
with himself, if not self-contradictory. But if we count the fifteenth 
year from his co-regency, all his statements are consistent. As it is 
certainly possible, not to say very probable, that he counted from this 
period, the presumption is that he did so, and we find additional 
proof of this in the peculiar position of public affairs. 

It is to be noted here that the time of Augustus and Tiberius was 
a transition period in the government, and that neither the principles 
nor the forms of imperial succession were yet established. It is said 
by Merivale (His., iii. 335) that Julius Caesar permitted the senate to 
decree that his imperatorial title should descend to the adopted heir, 
but Octavius had carefully abstained from claiming it in virtue of his 
descent. Though he became at last absolute ruler, yet he ruled under 
republican names and forms, and ‘‘ warily declined any of the 
recognized designations of sovereign rule.” Thus the time of his 
sovereignty is dated from several periods. (Clinton, Fasti, iii. 276. 
For the gradual growth of his power, see Merivale, iii. 342.) Meri- 
vale seems to place it in 731, when he accepted the potestas tribunitia, 
and remarks that ‘‘this power was justly considered the keystone of 
the whole imperial edifice. From this period Augustus may deserve 
the title of emperor.” 

With regard to the imperial succession, it is said by Mommsen (ii. 
2. 1040) that ‘‘a Roman emperor could not designate his successor. 
The day of the death of one is not the day of the succession of the 
other; who should succeed him is to be determined after he is dead. 
This sprung from the old republican usages, for the empire was a 
republic with a monarchical head. It was from this fact that a 
co-regency was of so much importance, no rules of succession being 
established. A co-regency was the mode of designating a successor, 
and at first under Augustus conveyed a large degree of power. A 
co-regent was nvs the equal of a princeps, for there could be but one 
prince.” (But see Wieseler, Beitrige, 178, who says that Tiberius 
was called princeps two years before the death of Augustus.) The 
conferring of the tribunitial power upon Tiberius was, says Merivale, 
‘‘ universally regarded as a virtual introduction to the first place in 
the empire; and the pro-consulate throughout the provinces, decreed 
him later by the senate, would hardly admit of any other interpreta- 


DATE OF THE LORD’S BAPTISM. 27 


tion than that the son was thereby formally associated in the empire 
with his father.” (iv. 280, Zumpt, 295, note.) 

We cannot, without doing St. Luke great injustice as a historian, 
suppose him to have been ignorant of a fact so public and notorious 
as that of the association of Tiberius with Augustus in the empire, 
much less of his actual rule in the east; and there is no good reason 
why, if knowing it, he should not have taken it as an epoch from 
which to reckon. If the Italians dated his reign from the emperor’s 
death, that naturally followed from the fact that the imperial authority 
of Tiberius during his colleagueship was little felt in Italy, his 
administration being confined to the provinces. But it gives a good 
reason why those in the provinces, especially of Asia Minor and Syria, 
should reckon from the time when he became, in regard to them, the 
acting emperor. It is said by Woolsey (Bib. Sac., 1870, 333) that at 
Rome, ‘‘as the government became established, and imperial power 
began to be looked on as a unity, the accession of an emperor on the 
death of his predecessor soon furnished a convenient and uniform 
date. Nor was it of much significance to the Romans that the man 
next to the emperor received an accession of dignity or authority. 
But in the provinces it was otherwise. Investment with proconsular 
power, for instance, might affect their welfare, and be a matter of 
interest to them, when it was not so in the central city. Hence such 
computations might readily spring up into use in the east, as we 
know it to have been true in regard to the reign of Augustus.” 
One such reckoning, departing from the ordinary date, is found on 
Egyptian coins, which count the years of Tiberius from 4 A.D., 
when he was adopted by Augustus, and invested with the tribunicial 
power for five years. If Egypt counted his years from the time 
of his adoption, and of his acquisition of tribunicial power, with 
much more reason might this be an era to those who were deeply 
affected by it. (See Wieseler, Beitrage, 189.) The cases in all eastern 
countries where the sons of kings were associated with their fathers 
in the kingdom, were so common, that the double reckoning of their 
reigns could not have been anything unusual. Indeed, the epoch 
from which to date a reign is often perplexing, and brings no little 
confusion into chronology. Greswell (i. 336) ascribes the Evangelist’s 
statement to ‘‘that scrupulous regard to truth which we should have 
a right to expect from an inspired historian. He could not deliber- 
ately call that year the thirteenth of Tiberius which he knew to be 
really his fifteenth.” 

Whether, as has been said, Luke, by the choice of the word ‘‘reign,” 
tryevevia rather than povapxla or Bacidela, designed to indicate this, is 


28 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAYS. 


uncertain, but the word is certainly applicable to a government 
administered by more than one person. (See Zumpt, 296.) Wiese- 
ler (Beitrige, 195) asserts that the term ‘‘ Caesar,” in the formula 
TBeplov Kalcapos, is not to be taken as a family name, but as an expres- 
sion of dignity, and to be translated, ‘‘In the fifteenth year of the 
reign of Tiberius as Caesar”;' and that this, in connection with the 
use of 7yevovla instead of vovapxia, leaves no doubt that the co-regency 
of Tiberius is to be understood. 

(As to coins and the inferences to be drawn from them, see Wiese- 
ler, Beitrige, 190. He accepts as genuine one of Antioch on which 
Tiberius, before the death of Augustus, is called ZeBacrds — Augustus, 
contra, Sevin, Keil.) 

These considerations will, we trust, exculpate the Evangelist 
from all charges of historical inaccuracy. It is plain that he might 
reckon the years of Tiberius’ reign from that time, when, by his 
father’s desire and the solemnly expressed will of the Senate and 
people, he entered upon the exercise of imperial power. But 
whether, in point of fact, Luke thus computes, continues to be 
matter of dispute.” 

To sum up our investigations upon this point, we find three 
solutions proposed of the chronological difficulties which the state- 
ments of Luke present. First, That the fifteenth year of Tiberius 
is to be reckoned from the death of Augustus, and extends from 
August, 781, to August, 782, and that in this year the Baptist, whose 
labors began some time previous, was imprisoned, but the Lord’s 
ministry began in 780, before this imprisonment, and when He was 
about thirty years of age. Second, That the fifteenth year is to be 
reckoned from the death of Augustus, but that the statement, that the 
Lord was then about thirty years of age, is to be taken in a large sense, 
and that He may have been of any age from thirty to thirty-five 
when He began His labors. Third, That the fifteenth year is to be 
reckoned from the year when Tiberius was associated with Augustus 
in the empire, and is, therefore, the year 779. In this case the 
language, ‘‘He was about thirty,” may be strictly taken, and the 
statement, ‘‘the word of God came unto John,” may be referred to 
the beginning of his ministry. 

Of these solutions, the last seems to have most in its favor; and 


1 See Winer, Gram., 138, trans. 

2In favor of the computation from the colleagueship, Usher, Bengel, Lardner, Jarvis, 
Greswell, Lichtenstein, Sepp, Friedlieb, Bucher, Patritius, Edersheim, Zumpt, Woolsey, 
Weiss; from the sole reign of Tiberius, Lightfoot, Meyer, Ebrard, Tischendorf, Ewald, 
Browne, Ellicott, Ammer, Keil, Sevin, Wieseler, Quandt. Clinton says, ‘* We are com- 
pelled to conclude that St. Luke computed the years of Tiberius in a peculiar manner.” 


DATE OF THE LORD'S BAPTISM, 25 


we shall assume that during the year 779, or the fifteenth year or 
Tiberius reckoned from his colleagueship with Augustus, John began 
to preach and baptize. 

We have next to inquire in what period of the year his labors 
began. 

Datum 1.— From the fact that the Levites were not allowed to 
enter upon their full service till the age of thirty (Numb. iv. 3), it 
has been generally supposed, although there is no express law to that 
effect, that the priests began their labors at the same age. At this 
period the body and mind were deemed to have reached their full 
vigor. Hence, it has been inferred that John must have reached the 
age of thirty ere he began his ministry. If this inference be correct, 
he began to preach during the summer of 779, his birth having taken 
place, as we have seen, in the summer of 749. We may, then, con- 
clude that he entered upon his work near the middle of 779, when 
he was about thirty. If so, he began to preach and baptize about 
July or a little later. How long his labors had continued before 
Jesus came to him to be baptized, we can but conjecture. That, 
however, he had been active for a considerable period, is apparent 
from the statements by the Synoptists respecting ‘‘the multitudes 
that came out to him from Jerusalem, and all Juda, and all the 
region round about Jordan” (Matt. iii. 5; Mark i. 5; Luke iii. 7). 
Some months at least must have elapsed ere his fame could have 
spread so widely, and so many have been drawn to him. And if 
we suppose that the larger part of these crowds received the rite 
of baptism at his hands, a still longer period is required. A body of 
disciples, as distinguished from the multitudes, had already gathered 
around him (Acts xiii. 24). If we add to this, that at Christ’s bap- 
tism, his work seemed to have reached its highest point, and thence- 
forward began to decline, we cannot well estimate this period as less 
than some months in duration. As John was born six months before 
the Lord, some have said that his ministry began six months earlier 
‘Weiss, Lewin). 

On the other hand, there are some considerations that prevent us 
from much enlarging this period. The general belief of the Jews 
that the coming of the Messiah was near, and their earnest desire for 
it, would naturally turn their attention to John as soon as he appeared 
in public. His ascetic life, his energetic speech, his boldness of re- 
proof, and the whole character of his teachings, were adapted to pro- 

1Caspari, 117, one month: Meyer, a very short time: and Sepp, that he began his 


ministry on the day of atonement, October—the beginning of a new era of years. 
Déllinger and others think that he preached some months before he began to baptize. 


36 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAY. 


duce an immediate and powerful impression upon the people at large. 
And the frequent gathering of the inhabitants from all parts of the 
land at the feasts, would serve rapidly to diffuse the tidings that a 
new prophet had arisen. But as such a phenomenon as this preacher 
in the wilderness could not long escape the notice of the Pharisees 
and the ecclesiastical rulers at Jerusalem, so it could not long remain 
unquestioned. So soon as his popularity became wide-spread, and 
multitudes began to receive baptism at his hands, they would seek to 
know who he was, and by what authority he instituted this new rite. 
But, as appears from John (i, 19-28), no such formal inquiry was 
made by the Pharisees of the Baptist till after the baptism of Jesus. 
Hence we may infer that his ministry had not yet continued any very 
long period. 

We may also add that John’s message, ‘‘ Repent ye, for the king- 
dom of heaven is at hand,” was plain and easily understood. He was 
no teacher of abstract doctrines, but a herald of the Messiah, and his 
words took immediate hold of men’s hearts. Thus his mission could 
be speedily fulfilled. 

In view of the above considerations, we conclude that John’s min- 
istry, including a period of preaching before his baptism began, may 
have continued about six months, when the Lord came to be bap- 
tized. If he was already thirty when he began his work, and bis 
birth be placed in June, 749, six months before that of the Lord, he 
began in July, 779, to preach in the wilderness. If about six months 
elapsed ere the Lord came to him at the Jordan, His baptism was 
near the beginning of 780. It confirms us in this result, that two or 
three months must have elapsed from the baptism of Jesus to the first 
Passover (John ii. 13). We rest, then, in the conclusion, that Jesus 
was baptized December, 779, or January, 780. 

In the absence of all other data, we must here consider the tradi- 
tion that puts His baptism on the 6th of January. It has already 
appeared in our inquiries into the date of our Lord’s nativity, that 
both His birth and baptism, and also the adoration of the Magi, were 
originally commemorated on the same day, and that this day was the 
6th of January. This feast was called the feast of the Epiphany, 
émipdvea (Titus ii. 13), and commemorated His manifestation to the 
world. It is uncertain how early the western church distinguished 
the birth from the other events and commemorated it on another day. 
That the primary reference of the Epiphany was to the baptism is 
very probable, and that the baptism continued for a long time 
to be the more important of the two, appears from the old Roman 


1So Lightfoot, Newcome, and many. 


DATE OF THE LORD’S BAPTISM. 31 


Ordo, where it is said, quod secunda Nativitas Christi — Epiphania — 
tot illustrata mystertis, honoratior est quam prima. (But see article 
“‘ Christmas,” in Dict. of Christian Antiquities, Smith and Cheetham. 
The writer says: ‘‘The western church, so far as we can trace 
the matter back, seems to have kept the two festivals of the 
Epiphany and Nativity always distinct.”) After the Roman church 
had established the feast of the Nativity upon the 25th December, 
it still continued to observe the 6th January in commemoratior 
of the adoration of the Magi and of the baptism, giving, how 
ever, more prominence to the former than to the latter.!. The Greek 
Church, on the contrary, after it began to observe the 25th December 
as the day of the nativity, transferred to it also the adoration of the 
Magi, and commemorated only the baptism on the 6th January. Thus 
both the Roman and Greek Churches now agree in the observance of 
this day as that of the Lord’s baptism. 

If we now proceed to ask, on what grounds this day was selected 
as that of the baptism, we obtain no very satisfactory answer. The 
feast of the Epiphany seems to have been originally commemorative 
of the baptism as the time when the Lord was first manifested openly 
as the Son of God (Matt. iii. 16-17); and as He was supposed, 
through a too literal interpretation of Luke (iii. 23), to have been just 
thirty years of age, the day of the baptism was also that of the birth. 
The same feast, therefore, might well embrace both events. After- 
ward, other events, coming under the same general idea of manifest- 
ation, were included in the commemoration; the adoration of the 
Magi, the first miracle at Cana of Galilee, where ‘‘He manifested 
forth His glory,” and, later still, the miraculous feeding of the five 
thousand.” As all these events could not have taken place on the 
same day of the year, it becomes doubtful whether any of them can 
be referred to the 6th of January. The observance of this day as 
that of the baptism, is first mentioned by Clemens of Alexandria, as 
existing amongst the Gnostic Basilidians of that city... Some have 
thought that, as the Egyptians celebrated at this time the feast Inven- 
tio Osiridis, the Basilidians adopted both the feast and the date from 
them. But, aside from other objections to this Egyptian origin,‘ it 
is most improbable that the church at large would have borrowed any 
feast from the Gnostics. We may rather, with Neander,® suppose it 
to have originated with the churches in Palestine or Syria. If so, the 
selection of the 6th January may rest upon some good basis. There 


1See Missale Romanum, in Epiphania Domini. 
2See Dorner, Christologie, i. 284. 3 Guericke. Archiologie, 201. 
4See Wieseler, 136. °Ch. Hist., i. 302. 


32 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAY, 


can be no question that the baptism, the secunda nativitas, was com- 
memorated before the nativity itself. Beyond the simple fact that 
the Epiphany was put on this day, we have no knowledge. Sepp 
(i. 243), though in general a defender of tradition, here rejects it, 
and Jarvis (467), at the close of his investigations into the matter, 
simply says that, as there is no testimony against it, there is no im- 
propriety in considering the 6th January as the true date.* 

But there is an objection to the month of January drawn from the 
climate of Palestine in the two particulars of rain and cold, that de- 
serves to be considered. It is said that such multitudes could not 
have gathered to John in the mid-winter, nor could the rite of bap- 
tism then have been performed in the cold and swollen Jordan.* We 
must then examine more closely the climatic peculiarities of Juda in 
these respects. 

In the inquiry into the date of the Lord’s birth, we have already 
had occasion to speak of the general character of the seasons. That 
during the winter, or rainy season, after heavy rains the traveling is 
difficult and fatiguing, all travelers testify.* But the rains are not 
constant. Beginning in October or November they fall gradually and 
at intervals, but become more copious and frequent in December, 
January, and February, and continue into March and April. It is 
stated by Barclay, that nine-tenths of all the rain falls in December, 
January, February, and March. In January, there are gushes of rain 
and sometimes snow, but in the southern parts of the land the sky 
clears up and there are often fine days.‘ The rain comes mostly out 
of the west, or west-northwest, and continues from two to six days 
in succession, but falls chiefly at night. Then the wind turns to the 
east, and several days of fine weather follow. The whole period 
from October to March is one continuous rainy season, during which 
the roads become muddy, slippery, and full of holes; but when the 
rain ceases, the mud quickly dries up, and the roads become hard,* 
though never smooth. 

If, as we have supposed, John began to preach in the summer, 
perhaps in July, there is nothing in these statements to lead us to sup- 
pose that he suspended his labors when the rainy season began. Dur- 
ing the intervals of clear weather, at least, the people continued to 
gather to him. Besides, we cannot tell what was the character of this 


1So0 Bucher, Friedlieb, Browne, Edersheim, McClellan. ‘* About the last half of 
January,” Greswell. In December or January, Lichtenstein. ‘* In Tisri, about the feast 
of Tabernacles.” Lightfoot. In November, Usher. In Spring. Clinton. The 7th of Oc 
tober Sepp. Beginning of December, Patritius. Im February, Lewin. 

*So Robinson, Sepp. 3 Thomson. 1. 329. 

«Winer, ii. 692. * Herzog’s Encyc., xi. 23. 


DATE OF THE LORD’S BAPTISM. 33 


particular season. According to Thomson (i. 129), the climate is ‘‘ ex- 
tremely variable and uncertain. I have seen the rains begin early in 
November and end in February, but they are sometimes delayed until 
January and prolonged into May.” We cannot, in a climate so 
changeable, undertake to say that John might not without any 
serious obstruction continue to preach and baptize throughout the 
whole rainy season. Greswell (i. 372) finds it specially fitting that 
he should commence his ministry at a time when water was so 
abundant, and affirms that ‘‘in Judea the winter season would be no 
impediment to the reception of baptism.” So far as regards the val- 
ley of the Jordan, he is in this justified by the statements of travelers. 
This valley lies so low that the cold of winter can scarce be said to be 
felt there at all. Especially is this true of the lower part of it, where 
John baptized. Lying twelve or thirteen hundred feet below the 
level of the Mediterranean Sea, it has a tropical climate. Josephus, * 
speaking of the plain of Jericho, says: ‘‘So mild is the climate, that 
the inhabitants are dressed in linen when the other parts of Judea are 
covered with snow.” Robinson also (i. 533), writing in May, speaks 
in like terms: ‘‘The climate of Jericho is excessively hot. In trav- 
ersing the short distance of five or six hours between Jerusalen. and 
Jericho, the traveler passes from a pure and temperate atmosphere 
into the sultry heat of an Egyptian climate.” Porter describes the 
air as being ‘‘like the blast of a furnace.” Weiss thinks that because 
of the heat, John could not have fulfilled his ministry in the Jordan 
valley in the summer. (So Wies., Beitrige, 187.) 

It appears, then, that the mere chilliness of the water of the Jor- 
dan running through this deep hot valley, where snow or ice is never 
found, cannot be so great as to prevent baptism, even in midwinter, 
except, perhaps, in some very rare instances. Wor is this river usually 
at its highest stage till April or May. As it was in Joshua’s time so is 


it now. ‘‘ Jordan overfloweth all his banks all the time of harvest” 
(Josh. iii. 15), or, as explained by Robinson, was full up to all its 
banks, ‘‘ran with full banks, or brimful.” ‘‘Then, as now, the 


harvest occurred during April and early in May, the barley preceding 
the wheat harvest by two or three weeks. Then, as now, there was a 
slight annual rise of the river, which caused it to flow at this season 
with full banks, and sometimes to spread its waters even over the 
immediate banks of its channel where they are lowest, so as in some 
places to fill the low tract covered with trees and vegetation along its 
sides.”? Thomson (ii. 453) speaks to the same effect, and explains 
why the overflow of this river should be so late in the season as 








‘War, iv. 8, 3. 2 Robinson, i. 540. 
Qx 


34 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAY. 


March or April after the rains are all over. This explanation he 
finds in the fact that its waters come from great permanent springs 
lying on the southern declivities of Hermon, and which are not at all 
affected by the early winter rains. ‘‘ It requires the heavy and long- 
continued storms of mid-winter before they are moved in the least; 
and it is not till toward the close of winter that the melting snows of 
Hermon and Lebanon, with the heavy rains of the season, have pene- 
trated through the mighty masses of these mountains, and filled to 
overflowing their hidden chambers and vast reservoirs, that the 
streams gush forth in their full volume. The Huleh, marsh and lake, 
is filled, and then Gennesaret rises and pours its accumulated waters 
into the swelling Jordan about the first of March.” 

That there should be occasional floods in this river after long- 
continued rains, before the time of harvest, and during the rainy 
season, is to be expected, and will serve to explain the statements of 
those travelers who found it swollen during the autumn and early 
winter. Thus Seetzen’ states that in consequence of a storm accom- 
panied with high cold winds, he was compelled to remain from the 
8th to the 14th January on the bank before he was able to cross. 
Sepp (i. 240), who bathed in it on the 6th January, 1846, found the 
current swift and the water cold. But such occasional floods do not 
affect the general rule, that during the winter the water remains at 
its ordinary level, and begins to rise toward March, and is highest at 
the time of harvest. ‘‘All rivers that are fed by melting snows are 
fuller between March and September than between September and 
March, but the exact time of their increase varies with the time when 
the snows melt.”’? 

From what has been said, it follows that so far as the climate is 
concerned, and the overflowing of the Jordan, no reason exists why 
John may not have been baptizing in midwinter. That baptisms at 
this season of the year actually took place in later times, we learn 
from the testimony of Felix Fabri.‘ He says that the cloisters of St. 
John on the banks of the river at the time of the Abbot Zozima were 
inhabited by many monks, who about the time of Epiphany — the 
6th January —kept high festival there. The Abbot of Bethlehem, 
the Patriarch of Jerusalem, with many monks and clergy, walked 
down to the river in solemn procession, and after a cross had been 
dipped in the waters, all the sick through their baptism were healed, 
and many miracles wrought in behalf of the pious. So in the time 
of Antonius Martyr and Willibaldus, ‘‘ the annual throng of pilgrims 


1 Cited in Ritter, Theil, xv. 517. 2 Smith’s Bib. Dict., i. 1128. 
® Cited in Ritter, Theil, xv. 539. 


DATE OF THE LORD’S DEATH. 35 


to bathe in the Jordan took place at the Epiphany.” ' It is therefore 
perfectly credible that John may have baptized many, and with 
others the Lord, in the month of January. 

We may now sum up the results of our inquiry. The first Passover 
after the Lord’s baptism was that of 780, and fell upon the 9th April. 
‘The baptism preceded this Passover some two or three months, and 
so probably fell in the month of January of that year. John’s minis- 
try began soon after he was thirty years of age, or about July, 779. 
Allowing that his labors had continued six months before the Lord 
was baptized, we reach in this way also the month of January, 780. 
Tradition has selected the 6th of this month as the day of the bap- 
tism, but we have no positive proof that the tradition is well or ill- 
founded. The climatic peculiarities of the country offer no valid 
objections to this date. Although there is good reason to believe 
that in December or January Jesus was baptized, yet the day of the 
month is very uncertain. 


I. DATE OF THE LORD’S DEATH. 


This point is so closely connected with the length of His ministry 
that we shall consider the two together. 

Datum 1.—Let us first ask in what years the crucifixion might 
have taken place? The latest year is defined by the administration 
of Pontius Pilate under whom the Lord was crucified. He was 
governor of Judea from the middle of 779 to 789; the Lord’s death, 
then, could not have been later than the year 789. But, supposing 
Him to have been baptized in 782, the latest possible period, as we 
have seen, His ministry, if prolonged to 789, would have continued 
six or seven years, which no one asserts. Assuming, as most agree, 
that His ministry was not more than three or four years, His death 
could not have been later than 786. We have, thus, the years 780~ 
-786, in some one of which the crucifixion must be put. 

Having the termini, what shall guide us in the choice of the 
year? The first and most important datum is one which astronomy 
gives us. -The day on which the Lord was crucified was Friday, as 
appears from the Evangelists. Joseph went to-Pilate to obtain the 
body of Jesus ‘‘ when the even was come, because it was the Prepara- 
tion, that is, the day before the Sabbath” (Mark xv. 42; Luke 
xxiii. 54; John xix. 42). That this Sabbath was the regular weekly 
Sabbath appears from all the Synoptists (Matt. xxviii. 1; Mark xvi. 
1; Luke xxiii. 56). Jesus was crucified on Friday, and buried the 


1 Robinson, i. 546. Early Travels, 17. 


36 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAY. 


same day, was in the grave over the Sabbath, and rose on the morn: 
ing of the first day of the week. 

Thus, most agree that the crucifixion was on Friday, in the month 
Nisan (Ex. xii., ff.), but it is in dispute whether this was the 
fourteenth or fifteenth of that month. If we assume here, for the 
moment, that the Lord died on Friday, the fifteenth Nisan, —a point 
to be fully considered later,— the question before us is, whether there 
is any year, within the possible range of dates, in which the fifteenth 
day of Nisan fell on Friday. 

‘Two matters in which the Jewish method of computation dif- 
fered from ours must be distinctly borne in mind: first, that the 
Jewish day extended from sunset to sunset, and that, therefore, the 
fifteenth day of Nisan began at sunset on the fourteenth day and in- 
cluded what we should call the evening of the fourteenth day; and, 
in like manner, the sixth day of the week (Friday) began at sunset 
on the fifth day (Thursday) and included what we should call 
the evening of Thursday; and, secondly, that the Jewish month did 
not begin on the day of the conjunction of the moon with the sun 
(the astronomical new moon), but on the day when the new moon 
was first visible in the sky. It follows from this Jast statement that 
the fifteenth day of Nisan was not necessarily the day of the 
astronomical full moon, and that no special observation was made to 
determine it; it was simply two weeks after the day when the new 
moon was first seen, or supposed to be seen, in the heavens. 

The time of a lunation, that is to say, the interval between two 
new moons, is not far from twenty-nine and one-half days. A lunar 
month, according to the time of the new moon’s appearance, consists 
of either twenty-nine or thirty days. To determine when the new 
month should begin, we are told that the Sanhedrim held a session 
on the day following the twenty-ninth day of each month. If credible 
Witnesses appeared and testified that they had seen the moon on 
the preceding evening, the Sanhedrim made proclamation that the 
month had ended, having been a ‘‘deficient * month of twenty-nine 
days, and the new month was reckoned from the preceding sunset. 
If, however, there was no satisfactory testimony that the new moon 
had been seen, it was proclaimed that the new month would begin 
at the following sunset, the day of the Sanhedrim’s session being the 
thirtieth and last day of a ‘‘ full” month; and no further watch was 
kept for the new moon. [Edersheim, The Temple, ete., pp. 169, sqq. ; 
Stapfer'’s Palestine in the time of Christ (trans.), p. 195.] 

It may be noted that in the modern Jewish calendar the beginning 


1 For the following discussion we are indebted to Prof. Hart of Trinity College. 


DATE OF THE LORD'S DEATH. 37 


of the months is determined beforehand by astroncmical calculation, 
and that the month Nisan is not allowed to begin on the second, 
the fourth, or the sixth day of the week. But it is quite certain that 
there was no such limitation in the time of Christ. [Caspari, Intro- 
duction to the Life of Christ (trans.), p. 195.] 

Now, when the fifteenth day of Nisan fell on Friday, that is to 
say, when it began at surset on Thursday, the first day of Nisan 
must also have begun at sunset on Thursday; and, therefore, either the 
new moon which determined the beginning of Nisan must have been 
seen on Thursday evening, or else the preceding month must have been 
adjudged to have thirty days, and the month must have begun with- 
out any observation of the moon. This latter supposition, depending 
upon the state of the weather and on other uncertainties, does not 
appear to have been considered by writers on the subject. Passing 
this by, the question recurs, whether there is any year, within the 
possible range of years within which the Lord’s Passion must have 
occurred, when, the sky being clear, the new moon could have been 
seen by watchful observers on the evening, as we should call it, of 
Thursday. 

Dr. Salmon (Introduction to the New Testament, ed. 2, pp. 266- 
267), giving a table of the time of the astronomical new moon for 
each year from A. U.C. 780 to 789 (A. D. 27 to 36) inclusive, and 
adding the day when, in his judgment, the moon was first visible, 
comes to the conclusion that there is but one of these years, namely, the 
year 787, when the new moon could possibly have been first seen on 
a Thursday evening; and in that year he thinks it very doubtful 
whether it could have been thus seen. He holds that the Passion 
was on a Friday, but that it was on the fourteenth of Nisan, the day 
before the Passover; and, being of the opinion that the year 783 was 
the probable year, he finds his views as to the day and the year 
corroborated by the date of the moon’s first visibility, which he gives 
as Friday, March 24th. This would make the fifteenth day of Nisan 
to have begun at sunset on Friday, April 7th. 

Dr. Salmon’s great eminence as a mathematician, no less than as a 
theologian, makes one hesitate to criticise his conclusions; but it 
seems that they may be fairly questioned on grounds suggested by 
Caspari (op. cit., pp. 14, sqq.), who, nevertheless, agrees with Dr. 
Salmon as to the day of the Passion. In the year 783 the moon was 
in conjunction with the sun at about eight o’clock p.m. of Wednes- 
day, March 22d, according to our reckoning. It is generally thought 
necessary to allow some thirty hours after conjunction, or the time of 
the astronomical new moon, before one can expect to see the moon in 


38 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAY. 


the heavens; and if thirty hours were required at this time, the moon 
could not have been seen on Thursday evening, and the month could 
not have begun till sunset on Friday. 

But it is by no means certain that the moon could not have been 
seen by skilled observers—and such there were at Jerusalem, en- 
gaged in watching for the faintest crescent which should show that 
the moon had changed — on Thursday evening. The sun would set 
at about six o’clock; the moon, then twenty-two hours old, would be 
nearly an hour behind it; and it certainly is not impossible, under 
favorable circumstances, to see the moon when between twenty-two 
and twenty-four hours old. Kepler informs us that at Seville, on 
the 13th day of March, 1553, the new moon was seen about midday 
at a distance of ten degrees from the sun, that is to say at less than 
twenty hours after conjunction. ‘‘The whole city,” says he, *‘saw 
it and bore witness.” (Kepler’s opera, ed. Frisch, ii. 699, vi. 488.) 
He also says (vi. 488) that the moon is sometimes seen, both old and 
new, on the same day, and he thus interprets (erroneously) the Greeks 
phrase, én kal véa. | Caspari, who refers to the phenomenon at Seville, 
tells us (p. 15) that Americus Vespuccius once saw the moon on the 
day of the conjunction, and — which is more pertinent to the present 
purpose — he gives (p. 14) Jewish authority for the statement that, 
under given circumstances, the moon may be seen fourteen hours 
after conjunction. It seems quite possible, therefore, that in the year 
783, the watchers at Jerusalem may have seen the moon on the even- 
ing of Thursday, March 23d, and that therefore the first and the fif- 
teenth days of Nisan in that year may have began with sunset on 
Thursday and ended with sunset on Friday. And in such an argu- 
ment as this, the proof of possibility is all that can be required. 

In the year 780, the time of the moon’s conjunction was also eight 
P.M. on a Wednesday (March 26th). It is possible, therefore, that in 
this year the Lord might have suffered on the first day of the Passover 
being a Friday. But we have other reasons for placing the Passion in 
the year 783. 

It must not be forgotten that it is possible that the beginning of 
the month in which the Lord suffered was not determined by observa- 
tion of the moon. The uncertainties which must be caused in almost 
any climate by clouds or by disturbed states of the atmosphere, are 
such as to make purely astronomical calculations somewhat unsatis- 
factory. Yet, on the view which is here maintained, the month 
began early, rather earlier than might have been expected; and it 
seems, therefore, almost certain that the opening of the Passover- 
month was proclaimed on the evidence of witnesses who declared 





DATE OF THE LORD'S DEATH. 39 


that on the evening following the fifth day of the week, or, as they 
would have said, on the evening beginning the sixth day of the week, 
they had seen a faint streak of light in the west with perhaps the 
outline of the moon’s orb. If we have reasonable proof that, as was 
assumed at the beginning, the Lord’s Passion was on a Friday, which 
was the fifteenth day of Nisan, and if it is quite possible, without the 
assumption of any very extraordinary phenomenon, that the fifteenth 
day of Nisan fell on a Friday in the year 783, to which year other 
indications point, we need not hesitate to fix upon that year (A. U. C. 
788, or A. D. 30) as the year of the Passion and the Resurrection. 

It may be added that the tables given by Browne (Ordo Saeclorum, 
p- 55) are of little value for our purpose, as they are based on astro- 
nomical computations of the time of full moon, as if the Jews deter- 
mined in that way the place of the first day of the Passover. But it 
is interesting to note that, according to these tables, in the year 783 
the moon came to the full about two hours before the midnight which 
ended our sixth day of April, or belonged to the Jewish seventh day 
of April, which was Friday. 

The error made by Wieseler, who forgot that the Jewish day 
began with sunset, has been corrected both by Caspari and by Salmon 
(opp. citt.) But Wieseler also assumed that the new moon, which 
determined the beginning of Nisan in 783, could not have been seen 
until Friday evening, an assumption which we have seen to be unten- 
able. The two errors correct each other; and we can agree with 
Wieseler’s conclusion that the year 783 was the year of the Passion.” 

Let us see how far this result reached by Prof. Hart will harmonize 
with those already obtained. If the Lord was born in 749, or begin- 
ning of 750, He would have been in April, 783, about 33 years old. 
H He was baptized in the beginning of 780, He was about thirty 
when He began His work, and His ministry continued about three 
years. 

If the data given by the Evangelists were sufficient to determine 
the length of His ministry, then, by adding it to the year of His bap- 
tism, we easily define the year of His death; but the data are not suf- 
ficient. It has already been shown that about three months inter- 
vened between His baptism and the Passover following; which was 
probably that of 780, the first of His ministry (John ii. 13). Two 
other Passovers are mentioned by this Evangelist (John vi. 4, and 
xi. 56), the latter being the last Passover. If there were but three 
Passovers during His ministry, it was only of two years and some 
months duration. But John speaks of a feast (v. 1) which he does 
not name, and which many regard as a Passover; if so, there would 
}e four Passovers, and His ministry extend a little over three years. 


40 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAY. 


The point as to this unnamed feast will be fully discussed in its 
place. Assuming here that it was a Passover, we reach the result, 
that His ministry, computing from His baptism in 780, continued 
about three years and three months. 

Datum 2.-~Some have thought to find a chronological datum in 
the fact of the darkening of the sun at the time of the Lord’s cruci- 
fixion. As this was upon the 14th or 15th of Nisan, and so at the 
time of a full moon, it could not have been an eclipse. But as men- 
tion is made of an eclipse which occurred near this time, some of the 
fathers and some moderns have sought to establish a connection 
between the two events. Phlegon, of Tralles, who died about 155 
A.D., and who wrote some historical works, of which only a few frag- 
ments remain, relates that, in the fourth year of the 202 Olympiad, or 
from July, 785 to 786, a great eclipse of the sun took place, greater 
than any that had ever been known, so that at the sixth hour it was 
very dark and the stars appeared. There was also a great earth- 
quake in Bithynia, and a great part of Nice was destroyed.’ This 
statement presents several apparent points of resemblance to those of 
the Evangelists, but a brief examination shows that it cannot refer to 
the darkness at the crucifixion. Phlegon speaks of an eclipse; had 
he meant an extraordinary or supernatural darkness, as said by Sepp, 
he could scarcely have failed distinctly to mention it. The time also 
of this eclipse is uncertain, for some of those who have reported his 
statement refer it to the fourth. and some to the second year of the 
202d Olympiad, or to the fourth year of the 201st.2. But the astron- 
omer Wurm has computed that only one eclipse took place in this 
Olympiad, and that in November 24, 782.° It seems, therefore, that 
Phlegon has himself erred in the date, or that he wrote the first year 
of this Olympiad, which has been changed into the fourth. As it is 
not mentioned at all by most of the early fathers, 1t seems that they 
must have regarded it as an ordinary eclipse, and therefore without 
any special relation to the crucifixion.‘ Most moderns agree that it 
is of no chronological value.* 

Datum 3.— Some have found ground for a chronological inference 
as to the time of the Lord’s death, in the assertion of the Pharisees 
before Pilate (John xviii. 31), ‘‘It is not lawful for us to put any man 
to death.” Lightfoot (on Matt. xxvi. 3) gives, as a correct tradition 
of the Talmudists, ‘‘ Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, 
judgment in capital causes was taken away from Israel.” It is gen- 


1 For some little differences in the version, see Jarvis, 420. 

2 See Ammer, 41; Wieseler, 387. 3 Winer, 2. 482. 4 See Jarvis, 427. 

6 Winer, Lichtenstein, Meyer, Jarvis, Greswell. Sepp would proye from it that the 
crucifixion was in 782; Ammer, that it was in 786, 


DATE OF THE LORD’S DEATH. 41 


erally agreed that the Temple was destroyed in August, 823. Com- 
puting backward forty years, we reach 783 us the year when the Jews 
lost the power of inflicting capital punishments. Hence it follows, 
that if Christ had been tried by them before the year 783, they would 
have had the power of punishing Him with death, according to their 
own laws. His crucifixion, therefore, could not have been earlier 
than this year. 

As we have no knowledge how this judgment in capital cases was 
lost to the Jews, whether by the act of the Romans, or, as Lightfoot 
supposes, by their own remissness, we cannot tell how strictly the 
‘forty years” is to be taken. They may be used indefinitely, forty 
being here, as often, around number. Little stress in this uncertainty 
can be laid upon this result.? 

Datum 4.— Some find in the parable of the barren fig-tree (Luke 
xiii. 6-9), an allusion to the length of the Lord’s ministry: ‘‘ Behold 
these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig-tree and find none.’” 
It certainly cannot be without meaning that three years are mentioned. 
This is ascribed by some to the fact that so many years must pass after 
planting before the tree can bear fruit.* But the language shows that 
fruit is sought, not after, but during the three years. Some refer it 
to the whole period of grace before Christ. But why designate it as 
three years? Perhaps some three epochs in Jewish history may be 
meant, although it is not clear what they are. It is not, however, 
improbable that Christ’s ministry is referred to. If we suppose it to 
have been spoken late in 782, His ministry beginning in 780, this was 
the third year, and He was not crucified till 7838. But it cannot be 
said that the tree was actually cut down after the expiration of the 
one year of grace. As a chronological datum, the mention of the 
three years has little value.*® 

Datum 5.—From early times, many have found a prophetic 
announcement of the length of the Lord’s ministry in the words of 
Daniel, ix. 27,— ‘‘ And He shall confirm the covenant with many for 
one week, and in the midst of the week He shall cause the sacrifice 
and the oblation to cease.” Of the fathers, Browne says (77), 
‘‘Others, comparatively late writers, were led by their interpretation 
of Daniel’s prophecy to assign it a term of three and a half years.” 
This interpretation has, all along to the present day, had advocates. 
Thus Lightfoot (iii. 39), ‘‘ He had now three years and a half to live, 
and to be a public minister of the Gospel, as the Angel Gabriel had 


1 Schiirer, ii. 1. 188, says the date is worthless. Eders., ii. 254. 
2So Bengel, Hengstenberg, Wieseler, Alford. * So Bloomfield. 
4 So Grotius, McKnight. 5 So Meyer, Trench, Keil, Godet. 


42 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAY. 


told that in half of the last seven of the years then named He should 
confirm the covenant.” It is said by Browne: ‘‘It seems also to have 
been commonly believed by the ancients that the last week of the 
seventy includes the predicatio Domini to the Jews for three and a 
half years before, and the same length of time after the Passion.” 
Greswell (iv. 406) maintains the same interpretation. Vitringa, with 
whom Hengstenberg agrees (Christology, iii. 163), says: ‘*‘ His death 
was undoubtedly to happen in the middle of the last hebdomad, after 
the seven and sixty-two weeks had already come to an end.” 

Withont denying that the prophecy has reference to the Messiah, 
it is questionable whether it is to be so pressed as to furnish a proof 
that the Lord’s public work continued just three and a half years. 
The number of interpretations that have been proposed is very great, 
and there is far from being even now unanimity of opinion. Thus 
Lightfoot makes the Lord’s own ministry to have been three and a 
half years; Sepp, twelve hundred and ninety days; Greswell adds 
to three years of the Lord’s ministry half a year of the Baptist; 
Browne, to one year of the Lord’s ministry two and a half years of the 
Baptist. We cannot, under these circumstances, attach much chro- 
nological importance to it.— Obscurum non probatur per obscurius. 

Computations as to the year when the seventy weeks ended, as 
bearing on the time of the Lord’s death, can be but little relied on, 
and need not be considered here. 

Datum 6.— Several recent attempts have been made to determine 
the year of the Lord’s death by the death of the Baptist. It is said 
with great positiveness that the statements of Josephus show that 
John’s death, and therefore the Lord’s death, must have been much 
later than is generally supposed. (So Keim, Volkmar, Sevin.) We 
must, therefore, examine these statements to determine their chrono- 
logical value. They refer to two points, the relations of Herod Antipas 
to Aretas, and his relations to John Baptist (Antiq. xviii. 5, 1). 

The substance of Josephus’ statement upon the first point is that 
Herod A. married the daughter of Aretas, an Arabian king, and that 
he lived with her a long time; but on a journey to Rome he visited 
his half-brother Herod, living as a private person, and fell in love 
with his wife Herodias; and she agreed to become his wife if he 
would divorce the daughter of Aretas. The latter, hearing of the 
agreement, persuaded Herod to send her to Machaerus, a fortress on 
the east coast of the Dead Sea, and on the borders of the territories of 
Herod and Aretas, and then subject to her father; and from this point, 
aided by his officers, she went on to his own capital. This treatment 
of his daughter stirred up Aretas, who also had other causes of dissat- 


DATE OF THE LORD’S DEATH. 45 


isfaction, and after a time hostilities began which ended with the 
total defeat of Herod A. After this defeat he sought aid from the 
emperor Tiberius, who sent orders to Vitellius, Governor of Syria, to 
punish Aretas; but the speedy death of the emperor put a stop to 
further proceedings. 

Upon the second point — John’s imprisonment and death — Jose- 
phus says that some of the Jews thought the destruction of Herod’s 
army a just punishment for his crime in putting the Baptist to death. 
He gives as the cause of Herod’s treatment of him his fear that John 
might use his great power over the people to incite them to rebellion, 
and therefore sent him a prisoner to Machaerus, where he was put to 
death. 

Let us now examine these statements of Josephus and find what 
light they cast on the date of the Baptist’s imprisonment and 
death. In the Gospels we have the following order of events, but 
without any definite dates; the marriage of Herod A. and Herodias, 
the rebuke by John, the anger of Herod, John’s imprisonment, his 
death through the enmity of Herodias. We know only that John was 
beheaded before the Passover (John vi. 4), which was probably that 
of 782. 

Let us note the order of Keim and Sevin, derived as they 
think from Josephus—the imprisonment of John at Machaerus, be- 
cause Herod A. feared he would stir up the people to insurrection, his 
death, Herod’s divorce of his wife, and his marriage with Herodias, 
in the same year, 786; the death of Jesus was a year later. (Sevin, 
in 787; Keim, in 788.) 

Let us prove this order, Its basis is the assumption that Josephus 
narrates events chronologically, and having mentioned the death of 
Herod P. in 786 or 787, the twentieth year of Tiberius, and in the 
next chapter the war of Herod A. and Aretas, the inference is drawn 
that the marriage of Herod and Herodias was after the death of 
Herod P. and after the imprisonment of John. The statements of 
the Evangelists that he was executed because of the rebuke of their 
marriage, and his death as due to her enmity, are rejected as wholly 
unhistorical. The basis of all this, that Josephus has narrated events 
in their chronological order, is pure assumption. In many instances 
he departs from it, and the formula with which he begins chapter 
five, ‘‘ About this time,” is very indefinite. (As to the chronological 
order of Josephus in general, see Ewald, v. 50.) As against so late a 
date of the marriage of Herod A. and Herodias are their ages. She 
must have been some forty-three or four, and he much older; a time 
of life when it is not likely that he would have been so transported 


44 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAY, 


by passion as to incur the anger of his people by e marriage forbidden 
in the law, and the dangerous enmity of his father-in-law Aretas. 

Have we any other data in Josephus to determine the time of this 
marriage? One much urged by Sevin is, that the divorce of his 
daughter was the cause of the war between Aretas and Herod A., 
which ended in Herod’s defeat; this defeat was probably in 789, a 
little before the death of Tiberius in March, 790. The inference is, 
that Herod was married to Herodias one, two, or three years earlier. 
Of course all depends here on the fact whether these hostilities and 
Herod’s defeat were immediately after the divorce. Two circum- 
stances make against this: 1. That Aretas had been at enmity with 
Herod because of boundary disputes some time before the divorce. 
2. That both kings were so under the domination of Rome that they 
could not make war upon one another at their pleasure. Wieseler 
conjectures that not till the Parthian war, when the Romans were 
occupied by more important matters, did they find a fit opportunity to 
begin their contest. (Ewald puts this defeat in 787.) 

Another datum in Josephus on which great weight is placed is, 
that Aretas at the time of the divorce was in possession of the 
fortress Machaerus, where John was beheaded. It is said that Herod 
could not have sent John there, after the divorce of his wife, and 
marriage with Herodias. If he sent him there before, he must have 
been in friendship with Aretas, and the statement of the Evangel- 
ists, that John was in prison because he rebuked that marriage, is 
thus shown to be erroneous. That the statement of Josephus pre- 
sents a historical difficulty, all admit. But it especially concerns 
those who rely on him, since the Evangelists do not say where 
John was imprisoned and beheaded, and some deny that Machaerus 
was the place of his death. But admitting that Josephus is right, 
how came Aretas in possession of Machaerus? and what kind of pos- 
session had he? That it was a most important fortress is said by Jo- 
sephus (War, vii. 6. 1), who gives a brief history of it. This fortress, 
as a chief defense of Perea, must have been included in that province 
when Herod was made its Tetrach. It is certain that it was not cap- 
tured from him afterwards by Aretas, nor is it likely that Herod gave 
it up voluntarily into his hands. Even if their relations were friendly 
up to the time of the marriage of Herod A. with Herodias, yet we 
canr dt believe that Herod would give up the strongest, and in some 
respects the most important, fortress of his dominions, to an ally who 
might at any time become an enemy. 

The question then arises, what kind of control Aretas may have 
had at Machaerus at the time of his daughter's flight thither? The 











EO 


DATE OF THE LORD’S DEATH. 45 


statement of Josephus is that Machaerus was ‘‘then tributary to ker 
father.” rére rarpl adrijs broreX@. Is this equivalent to saying that it 
was garrisoned by his soldiers, and that both the fortress and the city 
were under his authority as a part of his dominion? It is scarcely 
credible that this could have been the case, and, if it were, how did 
Herod regain possession of it? That after the divorce of his daughter 
Aretas would voluntarily have restored it, is incredible; and if it had 
been recovered forcibly by Herod, Josephus would have made some 
mention of it. (This point is discussed by Sevin, 938, who feels the 
diificulty to be so great that he can solve it only by supposing that 
Herod borrowed a dungeon from Aretas in which to imprison the 
Baptist, and that this was before Herod’s agreement with Herodias.) 

The true solution of the question is probably to be found in the 
fact that, during their period of friendship, Machaerus, as a border 
city, may have been a common meeting place for the subjects of both 
kings, and that Aretas may have had by Herod’s gift some ciaims 
for tribute from the citizens, and have had military officials there for 
this purpose. We have seen that Josephus speaks of the distinction 
between the city and fortress; the latter being a rocky eminence very 
high, and the city lying below it. Tristam (Land of Moab, 272), who 
in 1872 carefully examined the site, speaks of the ruins of the town as 
distinguished from the fortress, ‘‘ They covered perhaps a larger area 
than any site we had yet visited; . . . and cover in solid mass 
more than a square mile of ground.” He found the remains of a 
temple devoted to the Sun-God, from which he infers that there 
must have been a large population who were either Greeks or Syrians. 
Separated from the town by a narrow and deep valley was the fortress 
on the top of a conical hill. The citadel was on the summit of the 
cone which is the apex of a long flat ridge. ‘‘The whole of the ridge 
appears to have been one extensive fortress, the key of which was the 
keep on the top of the cone.” 

We may, then, accept the view (in substance, that of Gerlach, 
Keil, and others; contra, Schirer) that the citizens of Machaerus paid 
tribute, on grounds which we cannot explain, to Aretas who had 
military officials there, while the fortress itself which commanded 
the town was in the hands of Herod. The order of events may 
have been something like this: The daughter of Aretas, Herod’s wife, 
early heard of her husband’s agreement with Herodias; and, without 
revealing to him her knowledge, desired him to send her to Machaerus, 
where she knew she would find officials of her father who would 
forward her on her way tohim. It would seem from the narrative of 
Josephus that the real difficulty was to get from Machaerus into 


46 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAY. 


Arabia. But she arranged the matter beforehand; and, apparently 
without making any stop at Machaerus, went on to her father. It is 
obvious that, if the town and fortress had been in the hands of Are- 
tas, there was no necessity of her hastening away from Machaerus, as 
she evidently did, to a place where Herod could not follow her. 

If this be the right solution of the matter, the chronological diffi- 
culty, arising from the possession of Machaerus by Aretas, disappears. 
Had he possessed it at the time of the divorce of his daughter, and 
later, we should be compelled to put the imprisonment of the Baptist 
either before the divorce or several years later, and thus contradict 
the Evangelist’s account. But, if the fortress of Machaerus was all 
the time in the possession of Herod, he could have imprisoned the 
Baptist there at his pleasure, whatever fiscal claims Aretas may have 
had on the city. Some say, (Wies., Beitrige, 13,) that Augustus 
ordered Aretas to deliver up the fortress to Herod about 782, but of 
this there is no proof, and the silence of Josephus makes it improbable. 
Schiirer (239) supposes that it came into Herod’s hands soon after the 
flight of his wife, but why Aretas should deliver it up does not 
appear; Keim (i. 622), that Herod took it from Aretas by force. 

Can we get light from any other source as to the time of the 
marriage of Herod with Herodias? Attempts have been made to fix 
the time of that journey to Rome when he met Herodias. (Gres., iii. 
417; Wies. Syn., 241, and Beitrage, 13; Licht., 181.) But no satis- 
factory result is thus reached. (So Schirer.) 

But, if we knew the year of the marriage, we cannot tell how 
long an interval may have passed before the reproof of Herod A. 
by John. It is often said that it must have been very soon, while the 
popular mind was most stirred up (So Winer, Gres.), but this, by no 
means, follows. The marriage may have preceded the ministry of 
John by a considerable interval, and that which he denounced was 
not merely the marriage act, but the continuance of the marriage 
relation. When and where he met Herod and rebuked him, we do 
not know. As regards the defeat of Herod by Aretas, which the 
Jews thought a just judgment of God upon him for the death of the 
Baptist, we cannot infer that it was immediately after John’s death. 
An interval of eight or ten years would not be so long that the con- 
nection of the two events would be forgotten. Keim says, one or two 
years. 

Nor do we get any light from the knowledge of the time when 
Herod P. was married to Salome, daughter of Herodias. (Josep. 
Antiq., xviii. 5. 4.) If he died about the beginning of 787, she may 
have been married to him two or three years before his death. Her 
age at this time is unknown, but computations founded on the prob- 


DATE OF THE LORD’S DEATH, 47 


able year of her birth make her age to have been about twenty. She 
is called by the Evangelist (Matt. xiv. 11) a damsel — kopdcvov, — 
which implies that she was not more than twelve or fifteen at the 
‘‘Baptist’s” death. (As to the average age of females at marriage, 
Gres., ili. 415.) 

To sum up what we learn from Josephus in this matter of the 
time of John’s death, he gives us two dates,—the death of Heroc 
Philip in 787, and, inferentially, the defeat of Herod A. in 789. 
Neither of these dates helps us in our chronological inquiry. We do 
not learn from him when Herod A. went to Rome, when he married 
Herodias, when he was reproved by the Baptist, when the latter was 
imprisoned, or when he was beheaded. All inferences as to the date 
of the Lord’s death from the death of John, are without basis. The 
historical difficulty as to the possession of Machaerus by Aretas is one 
which our present knowledge does not enable us to solve. 

If Josephus does not help us in this inquiry as to the time of 
John’s death, what other data have we? 

The chief one is the statement, in John vi. 4, that a Passover 
took place a little after the feeding of the five thousand. ‘‘And 
the Passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.” This Passover, 
the third of our Lord’s ministry, was, as we have seen, that of 782, 
and fell on the 17th of April, and the death of John was a few days 
before this; the exact interval we cannot tell, as we do not know how 
long his death preceded the feeding of the five thousand, nor how 
long this feeding preceded the Passover. If John was beheaded at 
Machaerus, some days must have elapsed ere his disciples could bury 
his body, and come to inform Jesus. So far as this datum goes, we 
may place his death in the latter part of March or the beginning ot 
April, 782. ; 

Wieseler and others have attempted to reach a more definite result 
from the statements of Matthew (xiv. 6) and Mark (vi. 21) that 
Herod gave order for the death of John at a feast held by him. 
‘« And when Herod’s birthday came,” etc. The word translated birth- 
day — yevéo.uu — found only in this passage, is generally understood 
in its later usage as meaning a birthday festival or celebration. (See 
T. G. Lex. sub voce. So Rob., Meyer, Ols., Alex., Keil, Bleek, 
Farrar. ) 

If it be so used here by the Evangelists, it gives us no chronologi- 
cal datum, since we do not know the time of Herod’s birth. But 
Wieseler (Syn. 292) would understand it of the feast kept in honor of 
his accession to the throne, and in this way obtain a known date,— 
the 8th Nisan or 11th April, 782, as the day of John’s execution. 


48 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAY, 


Greswell (iii. 425), who also supposes that Herod was celebrating his 
accession on the grounds that ‘‘the day of a king’s accession was 
both considered and celebrated as his birthday,” and that the magnifi 
cence of his entertainment (Mark vi. 21) shows that he was com- 
memorating more than his birthday, reaches the result that John was 
put to death about the feast of Tabernacles, September 22, 781. 
(With Wieseler, in the meaning of yevéo.a, agrees Elli., 195; Ebrard; 
Eders., i. 672, note; Caspari, undetermined.) 

It is obvious that this datum does not give us any certainty as 
to the time of John’s death.’ 

We conclude that this enquiry as to the time of the Baptist’s death 
leads to no sure results, and, therefore does not help us as to our main 
enquiry, the time of the Lord’s death. (The other questions which 
arise respecting the imprisonment and death of John, will be con- 
sidered in their place.) 

From this survey of the several data respecting the time of the 
Lord’s death, we conclude that none lead us to positive results. If 
it were certain that the Friday on which He was crucified was the 
15th of Nisan, there would be strong probability, if not absolute cer- 
tainty, that the year was that of 7838. If, however, it was the 14th 
of Nisan, as many affirm, this datum fails us, and we haye to choose 
between the years 780 and 786. The computations based upon the 
darkening of the sun at His crucifixion, upon the loss of power to 
inflict capital punishment by the Jews, upon the parable of the barren 
fig-tree, upon the prophetic half-week of Daniel, and upon tradition, 
are all inconclusive. It is rather by a comparison of the sev- 
eral chronological sections in the gospels with one another, and 
with the results of astronomical calculations, that we reach the 
well-grounded conclusions that the Lord died at the Passover in the 
year 783. The day of the crucifixion, whether the 14th or 15th 
Nisan of that year, will be the subject of examination when His 
death is spoken of. 





Into the mazes of patristic chronology we are not called to enter, 
still a brief survey of early opinions will not be without its value. 
(See the very full investigations of Patritius iii., Diss. 19; Greswell i. 
438; Zumpt, Geburtsyahr, 3 ff.) We find three distinct views prev- 
alent. First, that which makes the Lord’s ministry to have continued 
one year, and the whole length of His life about thirty years. This view 
first comes to our notice among the Valentinians, who put the Lord’s 
‘ death the twelfth month after His baptism. Among the orthodox, 


1 John’s death is variously placed by harmonists in the years 778-786. 


DATE OF THE LORD’S DEATH. 49 


Clemens of Alexandria (+220) is the earliest defender of this view. It 
is placed mainly upon Scriptural grounds, much stress being laid 
upon Isaiah Ixi. 2, quoted by the Lord (Luke iv. 19), its advocates 
understanding ‘‘the acceptable year” to be the one year of His min- 
istry. Others refer to Exodus xii. 5. Haec omnium vetustissima 
opinio, says Scaliger. Among those who adopted it in substance, 
were Tertullian, Origen, Lactanius, and perhaps Augustine; although 
Tertullian is by no means consistent in his statements, Origen seems 
to have changed his opinion, and Augustine is doubtful. 

Second. That which makes His age at His death to have been 
between forty and fifty, but leaves the length of the ministry unde- 
termined. Of this, Irenzeus (+202) was the first defender, although it 
appears from Augustine that there were others later that held it. In 
proof, two passages in John’s Gospel were cited (viii. 57 and ii. 20). 
From the former it was inferred that He was more than forty, and 
from the latter that He was just forty-six, as the temple of His body 
had been so long in building. Irenzus, arguing against the Valen- 
tinians, shows from the mention of three Passovers by this Evangelist, 
that the Lord’s ministry was more than a year, but how long he does 
not determine. 

Third. That which makes His ministry to have continued from 
two to four years, and His whole life from thirty-two to thirty-four 
years. Of this view Eusebius (Hist. i. 10, ‘‘not four entire years”), 
Epiphanius, and Jerome were the earliest representatives. 

The early fathers were not wholly unaware of the uncertainty of 
their chronology, and several of them state that they had not the data 
for a conclusive judgment. Irenzus says: ‘‘ We cannot be cgnorant 
how greatly all the fathers differ among themselves, as well concern- 
ing the year of the Passion as the day.” Again: ‘‘Concerning the 
time of the Passion, the diversities of opinion are infinite.” Augustine 
says, that except the fact that He was about thirty at His baptism, all 
else is obscure and uncertain. Tertullian, as we have said, is in- 
consistent with himself, and now makes His ministry to have con- 
tinued one year, and now three; now puts His baptism in the fifteenth 
year of Tiberius, and now in the twelfth. Some began early to put 
His death in the sixteenth, others in the seventeenth or eighteenth, 
and finally in the nineteenth of Tiberius. 

One point, however, in patristic chronology may here be noticed, 
the early and general belief that the Lord was crucified in 782. It is 
well known that almost all the fathers of the first three centuries, 
particularly the Latins, accepted this date (Ideler ii. 412). Greswell 
remarks (i. 439): ‘‘I am persuaded that during the first two centuries 


2 


50 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAY. 


no Christian doubted of the fact that our Lord suffered in the fifteenth 
or sixteenth year of Tiberius.” This date, 782, is first mentioned by 
Tertullian (+248), who says: ‘‘The Lord suffered under Tiberius 
Caesar, C. R. Geminus and C. F. Geminus being consuls, on the eighth 
day before the calends of April” (25 March). On what grounds does 
this statement rest? Is it on a wrong interpretation of Luke’s word 
(ili. 1) that the fifteenth year of Tiberius (August, 781-782) is to be 
understood as the year of the Saviour’s death? This is inexplicable, 
since if He died March 25, 782, His ministry continued only some six 
or seven months; which is received by none. And if He died in the 
sixteenth year of Tiberius, as some fathers said, His ministry was but 
little more than a year. They must have seen this brief duration of 
His public life to be in direct contradiction with the statements of 
the Evangelist John, who mentions at least three Passovers, making 
His ministry to continue, at the shortest, two years. 

On what grounds Tertullian connects His death with the consul- 
ship of the Gemini, we do not know, but probably because they were 
consuls in the fifteenth year of Tiberius. In this case we get no 
chronological aid. The statement that Pilate, like all the procura- 
tors, was accustomed to send to Rome an account of his proceedings, 
and sent an account of the Lord’s trial and crucifixion—-ea omnia 
super Christo Pilatus Caesari, tune Tiberio, nuntiavit — which was 
open to inspection in the Roman archives, and known to Tertullian; 
though not in itself improbable, is generally questioned. (It is main- 
tained by Greswell, i. 440; Brown, 72; and Miller, Pontius Pilate, 
Stuttgart, 1888. See Tisch., Pilati circa Christum Judicio, 1855.) 
Aside from this, was there any independent tradition as to this date? 
It is affirmed by some that the church at Jerusalem had thus pre- 
served a knowledge of the year, but there is no sufficient proof of 
this. It seems unlikely that all the conclusions of the early fathers 
rested solely on a misunderstanding of Luke’s statement. Three so- 
lutions of the difficulty are proposed by Ideler: 1. That the Lord’s 
ministry continued only a year. 2. That Luke (iii. 1) designates the 
time of John’s death. 3. That Luke computes the fifteenth year of 
Tiberius from his co-regency. This last solution makes the Evan- 
gelist wholly consistent with himself, but was he so understood by 
the fathers ? 

We add a brief survey of opinions as to the length of his ministry. 
The first is that which limits His ministry to a single year, or a year 
and some months. As has been said, this was a very early ?pinion 
in the church. This early opinion has been recently defended by 
Browne in his Ordo Suaeclorum (p. 92), who finds only two Passovers 











DATE OF THE LORD’S DEATH. 51 


in John. On the other hand, Lewin finds five, and a ministry of four 
years. MacKnight supposes that the Lord’s public work may have 
been prolonged more than five years complete.’ ‘‘ Nay, it may have 
been several years longer, on the supposition that there were Pass- 
overs in His ministry, of which there is neither direct mention made, 
nor any trace to be found in the history.” 

Rejecting the extremes of either case, our choice must lie between 
a ministry embracing three, and one embracing four Passovers; some- 
times called the Tripaschal and Quadripaschal theories. The former 
has many advocates, but labors under many difficulties, which will 
be pointed out as we proceed. (Among its advocates are Wieseler, 
Godet, Pressensé, Ellicott, Caspari, Déilinger, Tischendorf, Farrar, 
and others.) On both internal and external grounds we are led to 
choose the latter, and to give to His ministry a duration of a little 
more than three years. Placing His death in April, 783, His public 
life, if it be dated from the purgation of the Temple, continued just 
three years, if from His baptism, three years and about three months, 
or from January, 780, to April, 783. 

It will be noted that many of those who put the Lord’s death in 
783, hold to a two years’ ministry, making the first Passover (John 
ii. 13) that of 781. 

We accept, then, as probable conclusions, that the Lord was born 
December, 749; baptized January, 780; crucified April 7, 783; 
length of ministry, three years and three months. That the 25th 
December and 6th January were the days of the nativity and baptism, 
rests wholly upon tradition. 

For comparison, we add the various dates of the Lord's death, 
which have found recent advocates: 781, Jarvis; 782, Browne, Sepp, 
Clinton, Patritius, Ideler, Zumpt; 783, Wieseler, Friedlieb, Greswell, 
Tischendorf, Bucher, Ellicott, Thompson, Riggenbach, Lichtenstein, 
Caspari, McClellan, Edersheim, Godet; 784, Hales, Paulus; 786, 
Ebrard, Ammer, Ewald. 


1 Harmony, Preliminary Obs, 


52 CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAY. 


We give for convenience the years of Rome from 745 to 795, with 
the corresponding years B. C. and A. C. 


Year of Year Year of — Year of Year Year of Year 
~U. mi 


Rome. B. C. Rome. Rome. A.C. Rome. A.C. 
745 9 757 4 770 17 783 30 
746 8 758 5 ff fl 18 784 81 
TAT tf 759 6 772 19 785 32 
748 6 760 7 773 20 786 33 
749 5 761 8 774 21 787 34 
750 4 762 9 775 22 788 35 
751 3 763 10 776 23 789 36 
752 2 764 il 7717 24 790 37 
753 1 755 12 778 25 791 38 

ALC: 766 13 779 26 792 39 
754 1 767 14 780 27 793 40 
755 2 768 15 781 28 794 41 
756 8 769 16 782 29 795 42 





ar 





SOVON ONE SLTTHLS 
MFI? 8 A 

© # $44: bs 
a giavgs0 779M YY 


@ anooys* a8 
« we . 
{ 


# GN0D7S e808 
suruvonr smsinst She ee ei 


SYEW ONE SHLINS) a vey zcOW CAP 
AIANNS BONYNIONO 


ALigOnany Viv 40 INIT 


OOPS ar 


W0L JO oIvoS 


HVinwHooZ 4 
Samveus u 


930 HOYNHS 
is anv3siua9 


ANIANOD 


& wITaAD 


quaday 
MOL SNNIHASSA 








THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. 





PART I. 


FROM THE ANNUNCIATION TO ZACHARIAS TO THE BAPTISM Or 
JESUS; OR, FROM OCTOBER, 748, TO JANUARY, 780. 6 B.C.— 
27 A.D. 


3-9 OcToBER, 748. 6 B.C. 


Near the end of the reign of Herod the Great, King of LuKEi. 5-22 
Judea, an angel was sent by God to Zacharias, an aged priest 
of the course of Abia, whilst ministering in the Holy Place, to 
announce to him the birth of a son, who should be the fore- 
runner of the Messiah. 


Tue chronological value of this statement has been already 
considered in the essay on the date of the Lord’s birth. 

Some of the fathers supposed that Zacharias was the high 
priest, and that the services in which he was engaged were 
those of the great day of atonement, upon the 10th of Tisri.’ 
But there is no ground for this. Zacharias is called only a 
priest, not high-priest, and was a member of one of the twenty- 
four courses; which the high-priest was not. He was also 
chosen by lot to burn incense upon the golden altar in the Holy 
Place; but the high-priest’s duties upon this day, as at other 
times, were prescribed by law, and could not be given him by 
lot. Besides, the latter must reside at Jerusalem, but the 
residence of Zacharias was in some neighboring city.? Accord- 
ing to Edersheim (i. 135), it was the morning service, and this 
was the first time in his life in which he had offered incense. 
(See Temple Service, 129.) 


1So Chrysostom, Ambrose; see Williams’ Nativ., 23; Maldonatus, in loco. 
3Greswell, i. 382; Patritius, iii. 8. 
(53) 


54 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part L 


Octoper, 748 — Marcu, 749. 6-5 B.c. 


Returning, after his course had completed its ministry, to LUKE i. 23-25, 
his own house in the hill-country of Judah, his wife Elisa- 
beth conceived a son and spent the five months following in 
retirement. j 


The home of Zacharias was “a city of Judah” in “the hill- 
country,” or mountainous region of Judah (Luke i. 39, 65). 
But, as the name of the city is not mentioned, several cities 
have contended for the honor of John’s birthplace. Many have 
supposed Hebron to be meant, a city very ancient and very 
conspicuous in early Jewish history.‘ A Jewish tradition also 
gives this as John’s birthplace.*. The objection of Caspari (55) 
that Hebron was in the territory of _Idumea, and no priestly 
family would dwell there, is not important. Aside from this, 
its claims rest chiefly upon the fact that it was a priestly city, 
and upon the form of expression in Joshua (xx. 7; xxi. 11), 
where it is described as being ‘‘in the mountain” and “in the 
hill-country of Judah.” 


Some have contended for Jutta, the Juttah of Joshua (xv. 55), 
regarding Juda, ‘Iovda, (i. 39) as an erroneous writing of Jutta, “Iova, 
or ‘Iovra. This view, first suggested by Reland (870), although 
wholly unsupported by any manuscript authority, has found many 
advocates.* The modern Jutta is described by Robinson (iii. 206), 
who saw it from a distance, as “having the appearance of a large 
Mohammedan town on a low eminence, with trees around.” It is 
about five miles south of Hebron, and was one of the priestly cities 
(Josh. xxi. 16). But, granting the identity of the Juttah of Joshua 
with the modern city, this adds nothing to the proof that it was 
John’s birthplace; and the fact that there is no tradition of that 
kind amongst the inhabitants, nor any local memorials, seems to make 
strongly against it. Keil reads it: ‘‘a city of the tribe of Judah,” 

Those who made Zacharias to be high priest, and so necessarily 
resident near the temple, supposed Jerusalem to be the city meant, 
but this has now no advocates. 

An ancient tradition designates a small village about four miles 
west of Jerusalem as the home of Zacharias.‘ It is now called by 
the natives Ain Karim, and is thus described by Porter (i. 233): 


1So Baronius, Lightfoot, Ewald, Sepp, Weiss, Geikie, Farrar, Sevin, 
2 Winer, i. 586. 3 Ritter, Raumer, Robinson, Patritius, 
#See Early Travels, 287 and 461. 


Part I.] ZACHARIAS AND ELISABETH. 55 


‘‘Ain Karim is a flourishing village, situated on the left bank of 
Wady Beit Hanina. In the midst of it, on a kind of platform, stands 
the Franciscan convent of St. John in the Desert. The church is 
targe and handsome, and includes the site of the house of Zacharias, 
where St. John Baptist was born. It is in a kind of grotto like all 
the other holy places, and is profusely ornamented with marble, bas- 
zeliefs, and paintings. In the center of the pavement is a slab with 
the inscription, Hie Praecursor Domini natus est.. About a mile 
distant is the place known to the Latins by the name of the Visita- 
tion. It is situated on the slope of a hill, where Zacharias had a 
country house. Tradition says that the Virgin Mary, on her visit, 
first went to Elisabeth’s village residence; but, not finding her there, 
proceeded to that in the country, where accordingly took place the 
interview related in Luke i. 39-55. The spot is marked by the ruins 
of a chapel, said to havexbeen built by Helena. About one mile 
farther is the grotto of St. John, containing a little fountain, beside 
which the place is shown where he was accustomed to rest.” (See 
also Pic. Pal., 204.) 

Ain Karim has found a recent supporter of its traditionary claim 
in Thomson, who finds no reason ‘‘ why the home of the Baptist 
should be lost any more than the site of Bethlehem or Bethany or 
Nazareth or Cana.” (Cen. Pal., 57.) Tobler, however, traces these 
traditional claims of Ain Karim only to the beginning of the sixteenth 
century. According to Raumer, a still older tradition designated 
Beth Zacharias as the place of John’s birth. Caspari advocates 
Khirbet el Yehud in Wady Bittir. See Baed., 276. The point is in 
itself of very little importance. We need not infer, as some have 
done (so Meyer), from the Evangelist’s silence, that he was ignorant 
where Zacharias lived, but only that he did not think it important to 
mention it. 

That Elisabeth left her own house, and went to some obscure 
dwelling, where she might be hidden from all observation for a 
time, is not improbable; yet the text is consistent with the sup- 
position that, continuing at home, she withdrew herself from the 
eyes of visitors. 


Marcu— Apri, 749. 5 B.C. 


In the sixth month of Elisabeth’s conception, the angel LUKE i. 26-38. 
of the Lord was sent to Nazareth, a city in Galilee, to a virgin 
named Mary, who was betrothed to a man named Joseph, of Marr, i. 20. 
the house of David, to announce to her that she should be the 
mother of the Messiah. 


56 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IL 


The most important point that meets us here is the relation 
of Mary to the house of David. Was she of that royal family? 
But before we consider it, let us sum up what is known, either 
from the Gospels or from tradition, of the personal history of 
Joseph and of Mary. 

Joseph is distinctly declared by Matthew to have been of 
the house of David through Solomon, and his genealogical reg- 
ister, going back to Abraham, is given (Matt. i. 1-17). In his 
dream the angel addresses him as “the son of David” (verse 
20). So by Luke (i. 27) he is said to be of “ the house of David” 
(also ii. 4). He was thus of royal descent, though occupying a 
humble position in society. His calling was that of a réxtwy, or 
carpenter, or, as the word may mean, any workerin wood.' He 
was generally believed by the early Church to have been an old 
man at the time he was espoused to Mary, and is so represented 
in the earliest paintings of the Holy Family.* In later pictures 
he is represented as younger, and from thirty to fifty years of 
age. According to Epiphanius, he was more than eighty; 
while in the Apocryphal Gospel, Historia Josephi,? he is said 
to have been ninety, and his age 111 years at the time of his 
death. It is not improbable that he may have been considerably 
older than Mary, as, though alive twelve years after Christ’s 
birth (Luke ii. 42), his name is not afterward mentioned; a 
circumstance most easily accounted for upon the supposition that 
he was dead before the Lord began His ministry. Some have 
inferred from Luke’s words (ii. 51), that He was subject unto 
His parents, that Joseph lived till He had reached manhood. 
Tradition also relates of him that he was a widower, and the 
father of four sons and two daughters. This point of a prior 
marriage will be considered when we come to inquire who were 
the Lord’s brethren. 

Of Mary, the Gospels give us even less information than of 
Joseph. In Matthew, her name only is mentioned, and no allu- 
sion is made to her family or lineage. In Luke, she is simply 
spoken of as a virgin ; and only incidentally is it mentioned that 
Elisabeth, the wife of Zacharias, was her ‘‘cousin,” or relative, 


1 Thilo, Codex Apoc., 368, note. 2 Jameson, Legends of the Madonna. 
3 Thilo, Codex Apoc., 361, note; Hofmann, 62, 


Part I.] THE MOTHER OF THE LORD. 57 


ovyyevi¢ (i. 36), “a blood relation on her mother’s side” (Eders. 
i. 149), m R. V. “kinswoman.” Some have inferred from 
this that Mary, like Elisabeth, was of the tribe of Levi; but her 
mother may have been of this tribe, or the mother of Elisabeth 
of the tribe of Judah.’ But the silence of the Gospels is amply 
compensated by the fullness of tradition.? We thus learn that 
she was the daughter of Joachim (Ehachim or Eli) and of Anna, 
her father being of Nazareth, and her mother of Bethlehem. 
They seem, however, to have resided at Jerusalem, as the Church 
of St. Anne is said to have been built over the grotto which 
was the birthplace of the Virgin.* Yet another tradition makes 
them to have resided at Seffurieh, a village a few miles north o 

Nazareth.* Many fables are related of the miracles heralding 
her birth, of her education at Jerusalem in the Temple, of her 
vow of perpetual virginity, and of her marriage to Joseph. 
That she was young at the time of her marriage, we may infer 
from the fact that females were married in the East at a very 
early age, generally from fourteen to seventeen, and often ear- 
lier.6 The Apocryphal Gospels make her to have been, some 
twelve, and some fourteen, when betrothed to Joseph. The lat- 
ter was more generally received in later times, though a few 
theologians make her to have been twenty-four or twenty-five 
when Jesus was born, wt perfecta mater perfectum filiwm gigneret.’ 
No allusion is made in any of the Evangelists to her parents, or 
to any brothers, but Mary, the wife of Cleophas, is spoken of as 
her sister (John xix. 25), though this relationship, as we shall 
hereafter see, has been called in question. 

From the statements of Luke (i. 26; ii. 4), we naturally 
infer that both Joseph and Mary resided at Nazareth at the 
time of the Annunciation. But some have maintained (see 
Meyer) that this is inconsistent with the statements of Matthew 
(ii. 22, 23), which show that he then dwelt at Bethlehem. But 
there is no real discrepancy. None of the Evangelists tells us 

1 (See Bleek in loco; a Lapide, Luke iii. 23, says that Matthan had two daughters, Sobe 
and Anna, and ason Jacob. Soba was mother of Elisabeth, the mother of the Baptist, 
and of Anna, mother of the Virgin Mary.) 

2 Hofmann, 5. % Robinson, i. 233. 4 Robinson, ii. 346. 

5 See Apocryphal Gospels, Baronius, Sepp. In W. and W. Kirchen Lex. vi. 815, these 
are rejected as unworthy of credence and without papal sanction. 


© Greswell, i. 398. 7 Hofmann, 52. 


3* = te 


58 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part L 


where Joseph lived before he was espoused to Mary. Matthew, 
relating the circumstances connected with the birth of Christ 
(i. 18-25), makes no allusion to the place where they occurred. 
He does not mention Nazareth or Bethlehem. Afterward, in 
connection with the visit of the Magi (ii. 1), he speaks of Beth- 
lehem as His birthplace, and we may infer that Joseph intended 
to return thither from Egypt after Herod’s death. But the 
direction of the angel to him was to return to “the land of 
Israel,” and probably he came first to Judea, but by divine 
direction he was made to change his purpose, and go*and dwell 
at Nazareth. All this proves nothing respecting his previous 
residence at Bethlehem. Matthew relates only the fact that the 
child was born there; Luke tells us how it happened that this 
was His birthplace. Matthew implies that it was Joseph’s pur- 
pose to return there from Egypt, but unable to do so he went to 
Nazareth ; why to this obscure village, unless it had been his 
former residence, does not appear. Luke states only that leay- 
ing Bethlehem he went to Nazareth. The only ground for sup- 
posing that Joseph had formerly resided in Bethlehem’ is found 
in his purpose to return thither; but this is easily explained as 
springing from the desire to rear the child of David’s line in 
David’s city. That he had no possessions there is apparent from 
Luke’s statement respecting the circumstances of Mary’s con- 
finement. The only interest that Matthew takes in Nazareth or 


. Bethlehem is from the connection in which these two cities stand 


to the Messianic prophecies (ii. 5-6, 23). In itself it was of 
no moment to him where either Joseph or Mary had lived before 
the birth of Jesus, nor indeed after it, except so far as their res- 
idence was His. 

We now turn to the question of the Davidic descent of Mary. 
If we set aside for the present the genealogical table in Luke 
(iii. 23-38) as of doubtful reference, there is no express declara- 
tion that she was of the house of David. The supposition that 
Lukei.27,refers to her, though formerly defended by many, and 
lately by Wieseler,? is very doubtful.? Some have supposed that 


1 See Upham, ‘‘ Thoughts on the Holy Gospels,” p. 215. 
2 Stud. u. Krit. 1845; Beitriige, 143; so Keil. 
8 Against it, Bengel, Meyer, Patritius, Alford, Fairbairn, Godet. 





: 
: 


Part I.] MARY OF THE HOUSE OF DAVID. 59 


she went with Joseph to Bethlehem at the time of the taxing (Luke 
ii. 5), because she, like him, was a descendant of David.' This 
journey, however, may be explained, as will soon appear, on 
other grounds.? This silence respecting Mary, contrasted with 
the prominence given to the Davidic descent of Joseph, has led 
many to suppose that the Evangelists attached no importance to 
ner lineage, but only to her conjugal relation to him. As his 
wife she became a true member of David’s family. Her child 
belonged to him according to the principle which lay at the 
foundation of marriage amongst the Jews, that what was born 
of the wife belonged to the husband. As it had no human 
father, and as he adopted it, it became in fact his, and inherited 
whatever rights or privileges belonged to Davidic descent. 
Since, then, through His legal relationship to Joseph, Jesus could 
truly be said to be of the house and lineage of David, it was 
wholly unimportant to specify the family of Mary.? That she 
was, however, in fact of David’s line, is maintained by most who 
regard the fact as in itself unimportant, or not proved.* 

When we compare the very remarkable declarations of the 
prophets respecting the Messiah, as the son of David, with their 
historical fulfilment as recorded by the Evangelists, it may at 
first appear that they refer to Him rather as the adopted and 
legal son of Joseph than as the son of Mary. Had His descent 
through His mother been regarded as the true fulfilment of the 
prophetic predictions, and of the covenant with David, would 
the Evangelists have passed it by without distinct mention ? 
We might therefore infer from their silence respecting Mary’s 
relation to David, that they regard her royal lineage as not 
essential to the fulfilment of prophecy. Joseph had a good title 
to the throne, and Jesus as his son stood in his stead, the right 
ful Heir of all the Covenant promises.° 
"180 Robinson's Harmony, 186; Mill, 209: “‘ The words distinctly indicate that Mary 
accompanied Joseph for the purpose of being enrolled herself.” 

2 Patritius finds in Mary’s supposed vow of perpetual virginity a proof that she was an 
heiress, and married to Joseph as a kinsman. 

8 So lately Da Costa, Fairbairn. 

4A legal proof is given by Upham (203). He affirms that Mary’s marriage with a 
descendant of David proves her Davidic descent, since as a prince he could intermarry 
only with a princess. So Patritius. 

5 So Da Costa, who supposes Mary to have been of the tribe of Levi. See contra 


Spanheim, Dubia Evangelica, i. 128, against Antonius, who defends this view. See also 
an able paper on this side in Bibliotheca Sacra of April, 1861, by G. McClelland. 


60 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part L 


The question of the Davidic descent of Mary thus regarded 
becomes one of secondary interest, as no promise of God is made 
dependent upon it. But if we take higher ground and seek 
more than a legal relationship, there is good reason to believe 
that she was of the royal family, and that thus Jesus was in 
every sense the son of David. Peter at Pentecost (Acts ii. 30) 
declared that in Him was fulfilled the oath which God sware 
to David, “that of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh 
He would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.” This language, 
taken in connection with the phraseology of the original prom- 
ise (2 Sam. vi. 12), “I will set up thy seed after thee which 
shall proceed out of thy bowels,” seems to point to Jesus as his 
lineal descendant. The words of Paul readily bear the same 
interpretation (Acts xiii. 23): “Of this man’s seed hath God 
according to His promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus.” 
Again, he says (Rom. i. 3); “ Which was made of the seed 
of David according to the flesh.” (See also Isaiah xi. 1; 2 Tim. 
ii. 8; Heb. vii. 14; Rev. xxii. 16.) In_the words of the anes) 
to bet (Luke i. 32), “the Lord God_shall 
throne of His father David,” it is intimated ne as_her son He 


was son of David, and so heir to the throne. (See also Luke i. 
69.) “ilkat ole shoalaaiae Ino tua uae f David did not make 
him in any real sense a son of David. 

The prominence given by Matthew to the Davidie descent of 
Joseph, and his silence respecting the family of Mary, finds a 
ready explanation in the peculiarities of his Gospel as designed 
for the Jews. Its very first sentence gives the clue to its right 
understanding: ‘The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, 
the son of David, the son of Abraham.’ He aims to show that 
Jesus is the heir of the two great Jewish covenants, that with 
Abraham and that with David. To this end he must establish 
first, that Joseph, Jesus’ legal father, was of David’s house, and 
so a lawful heir of the dignity promised in the covenant ; sec 
ond, that Jesus stood in such relation to Joseph as Himself to 
have legal claim to all promises belonging to the latter. He 
therefore brings prominently forward in the beginning of his 
Gospel the fact that Joseph was of royal lineage, and cites his 
genealogical register in proof. To have said that Mary was of 





Part I] MARY OF THE HOUSE OF DAVID. 61 


the house of David, and to have cited her genealogy, would have 
availed nothing, as it was a rule of the Rabbins, and one univer. 
sally recognized, that “the descent on the father’s side only 
shall be called a descent; the descent by the mother is not 
called any descent.”* He could not therefore speak of Jesus as 
son of Mary, even had it been generally known that she was of 
David's line, for as such He had no royal rights. It was only 
as the son of Joseph that He could be the heir of the covenants. 
Matthew must therefore bring forth clearly the legal relation in 
which Jesus stood to Joseph as his adopted son, but for his pur- 
pose it was wholly unimportant who his mother was. Hence he 
says very little of Mary, mentioning only her name, and without 
any explanatory remarks except respecting her relation as a be- 
trothed virgin, but says much of Joseph. His silence, therefore, 
so easily explained from the character of his Gospel, respecting 
Mary’s lineage, proves nothing against her Davidic descent. 

In our examination of this point it should be remembered 
that from_the earliest period the testimony of the Church has 
been that Mary was of David’s family.? This was a matter of 
fact about which the Apostles and early Christians could not 
well have been ignorant; and it is difficult to see how such a 
belief, if not well founded, could have become so early and uni- 
versally prevalent. 

The allusion (Luke i. 36) to kinship between Mary and 
Elisabeth determines nothing respecting the tribe of the former, 
as the term used denotes simply kindred or relationship, without 
defining its degree. As all the tribes might intermarry, Mary 
might have been of the tribe of Judah, though Elisabeth was of 

It was early said that the Lord was both of 
kingly and priestly descent, by Joseph on the one side and Mary 
on the other.* But this has no foundation. 

Thus we find sufficient grounds aside from the genealogical 
table of Luke to regard Jesus as the son of David through His 
mother. Yet the question, to whom does this table refer, is one 
of no little interest, as well as difficulty, and worthy of our care- 
ful examination. 


1 Da Costa, 474. 2 Meyer on Matthew, i. 17. 
* Testamentum xii. Patriarchum, in Lardner, ii. 330. Hofmann, 7. 


62 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part L 


The fact that there should be two genealogies of Jesus given is in 
itself a remarkable and perplexing one, and the most obvious explana- 
tion is that presented by the peculiar circumstances of His birth. As 
the legal son of Joseph, the genealogy of His father must be given; 
as the son of Mary and without any earthly father, her lineage 
becomes His, Yet in point of fact this explanation in early times 
found few or no advocates; the general opinion being that both 
tables were those of Joseph.’ But how could the same person have 
two such differing lines of ancestors? Three chief modes of reconcil- 
ing them have been presented; by the law of adoption; by the law of 
Levirate marriages; and by plurality of names. The common answer 
is that which combines the first and third of these modes, and which 
refers the table of Matthew to the legal successors of the throne of 
David, and that of Luke to Joseph’s paternal ancestors.” The former 
gives those who were the legal heirs to the kingdom. The line of 
Solomon failed in Jechonias (Jer. xxii. 30), and the right of succes- 
sion then passed over to the line of Nathan in the person of Salathiel. 
From Joseph, a younger son of Judah, or Abiud of that line, Joseph, 
the husband of Mary, traced his descent. The family of the elder 
son becoming extinct, Matthan, Joseph’s grandfather, became the 
heir. This Matthan had two sons, Jacob and Heli. The elder Jacob 
had no son, but probably a daughter, the Virgin Mary. The younger 
Heli had a son Joseph, who thus became both heir to his uncle and 
to the throne. Thus Mary and Joseph were first cousins, and the 
genealogical tables have equal reference to both. 

Both tables were referred to Joseph by Africanus (220 A.D.), 
whose solution of their difficulties by the law of Levirate marriages is 
given by Eusebius (i. 7). It supposes that Melchi and Matthan, 
Joseph’s grandfathers in the two genealogies, the one being of the 
family of Nathan, the other of the family of Solomon, had married 
successively the same woman, Estha, by whom the former had Eli, 
and the latter Jacob. Eli and Jacob were thus brothers uterine, 
though by their fathers of different families. Eli married and died 
childless, and Jacob according to the Jewish law married his widow, 
and had by her a son Joseph, who was in the eye of the law the son 
of the deceased Eli. According to Jewish custom the pedigree is re- 
corded following both descents, the legal and the natural, that of Eli 
given by Luke in the line of Nathan, and that of Jacob given by 
Matthew in the line of Solomon.* 

1 Mill, 196, says: ‘‘ We find no tradition more clear, more perpetual and universal.” 
2So Hervey in Smith’s Bible Dictionary, 666. McClellan, 417, reverses this order, 
Matthew gives the natural lineage; Luke the legal. 


8 Some, in later times, reversed this, making Joseph the natural son of Eli and legal 
g0n of Jacob. 





Part 1] THE TWO GENEALOGIES. 63 


It deserves to be noticed that Africanus affirms that his account is 
not an idle conjecture, nor incapable of proof, but came from the 
relatives of the Lord, who ‘‘gloried in the idea of preserving the 
memory of their noble extraction.” Whether his statement respect- 
ing the destruction of the Jewish family registers by Herod is histor- 
ically true has been often doubted.’ Of this mode of solution by 
reference to the ancient law of Levirate marriages, Lightfoot says (on 
Luke iii. 23); ‘‘ There is neither word, nor reason, nor indeed any 
foundation at all.” * 

But while the early Church generally ascribed both tables to 
Joseph, many since the Reformation have strenuously maintained that 
Luke gives the genealogy of Mary. And this view has not a little in 
its favor. It is not improbable that the tables given by Matthew and 
Luke are to be regarded as copies of family registers to which they 
had access, and which they give as they found them. It is said that 
there is no reason to believe that they were guided by the Spirit to 
make any corrections, for only as exact copies would the Jews deem 
them of validity.* | This must be taken with some limitations. It, 
however, would not forbid the insertion of an explanatory clause not 
affecting the order of the descent. Looking at the table in Luke (iii. 
23), the first point is as to the right reading; two things are in dis- 
pute: 1. The position of ‘‘son.”—viés. 2. The presence or absence of 
the article. In the received Greek text the reading is: dy, ws évoulfero, vids 
"Iwonp, ‘‘ being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph.” The reading of 
Tisch. and W. and H. is: dp vids, ws évoulfero, Iwonp, “ being the son 
(as was supposed) of Joseph.” R. V. The article rod is omitted be- 
fore Iwojp, and Joseph is therefore not the first name of the series, 
but Heli. It is said by Godet, ‘‘ The absence of the article puts the 
mame outside the genealogical series praperly socalled.” On what 

Se 
antecedent does Heli upon ‘‘son” or‘ » “Being son, 
as was supposed, of Joseph who was the son of Heli,” or, ‘‘ Being 
son, a8 was supposed, but falsely, of Joseph, and in fact of Heli.” As 
Luke had stated in full the manner of the Lord’s birth, no reader 
could fail to understand him that Jesus was not the son of Joseph, as 
was supposed, but of Heli. 

To determine the construction of this clause, let us consider the 
general scope of Luke’s Gospel. If, like Matthew, it was his purpose 
to found Christ’s Messianic claims upon His legal relationship to 
Joseph, he would, like him, give Joseph’s genealogical table. But 
such does not seem to have been his purpose. Had he designed to 


1So Hervey in Smith’s Bible Dictionary, 663; contra, Sepp, ii. 106. See Hambarger. 
ii. 393. 2 See, however, Mill, 201. 8 So Morrison. 


A 


64 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD, [Part L 


set forth Jesus as the Messiah he would in some way have designated 
the covenants with Abraham and David, which were the basis of all 
Messianic hopes. But no allusion is made to these covenants, nor 
any prominence given to Abraham, or David, and the genealogy is 
continued upward to Adam. We do not therefore find grounds for 
believing that Luke had in view, like Matthew, the proof that Jesus 
as the legal son of Joseph was the promised Messiah. What then is 
his purpose? It is one in conformity with the general scope of his 
Gospel, which was designed for Gentiles, and takes little note of the 
special relations of the Jews to God. After giving a full narrative of 
the Lord’s miraculous conception and birth, and a brief mention of 
His baptism, as preparatory to His public ministry, he proceeds to 
give His genealogy on that side only on which it could be really 
given, that of His mother. Through her He was made man, and 
through her should His descent from Adam be traced. 

If upon these grounds we assume that Luke gives the genealogy of 
Mary, let us note the force of his explanatory statement. Why does 
he insert the clause, ‘‘ being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph”? 
Is it that, being about to give Joseph’s genealogy as the legal father 
of Jesus, he thinks it necessary to insert a declaration that he was not 
His true father? This in view of the previous narrative seems super- 
fluous, for he had already shown Him to be the Son of God. And it 


and then proceed to give Joseph’s genealogy, unless he would make 
prominent His legal sonship, which, as we have seen, he has not done. 
If, however, we suppose_that igns to give the Lord’s descent 
through Hi ing the parenthetical clause is 
obvious. By the Jews at large he was regarded as the son 0 


and some explanation therefore was necessary why, contrary to all 


usage, the mother’s, not the father’s, genealogy should be 


This explanation is made in the statement that He was supposed to be 


son of Joseph. ‘‘ Jesus, generally but*erron upposed to be son 
of Joseph, was the son of Eli, of Matthan, of Leyi,Yete. That Mary’s 
own name is not mentioned makes no difficulty, since the mention oi 
female names was contrary to usage in such tables, and as she had 
already been distinctly mentioned as His mother, there was no danger 
of misapprehension. Her name being omitted, Jesus must be brought 
into immediate connection with her father, His grandfather. That 
He is called son, not grandson, is unimportant, the former term being 
often used to express the more distant relationship. That it is not 
strictly used throughout the table is apparent from verse 38, where 
Adam is called the son of God. That Eli is not expressly said to be 





Part I.] THE TWO GENEALOGIES. 65 


Mary’s father is not essential, since the form of the table implies the 


degree of relationship.’ 

Some, who regard the table in Luke as that of Mary, and Eli as 
ner father, suppose that Joseph is brought into it as his son-in-law or 
adopted son.” If it be admitted that this degree of relationship may 
be thus expressed, it is douvtful whether it would, without express 
mention, find place in a table in which only the direct line of descent 
is given. Jesus, having no earthly father, may well be called the son 
of Eli, although strictly grandson, from the necessity of the case, but 
the same reason does not hold in the case of Joseph.* 


We conclude that the two tables given by Matthew and 
Luke are to be regarded as those of Joseph and of Mary, and 
are in beautiful harmony with the scope of their respective 
Gospels. Through that of Matthew, Jesus is shown to be the 
heir of David as the legal son of Joseph; through that of Luke, 
to be of David's seed according to the flesh by His birth of 
Mary. The former, beginning with Abraham, the father of the 
chosen people, descends through David the king, to Christ the 
royal heir, in whom all the national covenants should be ful- 
filled ; the latter, beginning with the second Adam, the eternally 
begotten Son of God, ascends to the first Adam, the son of God 
by creation. Each Evangelist gives His genealogy in that 
aspect which best suits his special purpose; to the one He is the 
Messiah of the Jews, to the other the Saviour of the world.! 

Our purpose does not lead us to consider further the special 
features of these genealogies. Regarding them as copies of 
family registers, documents for whose accuracy in every point 
the Evangelists are not responsible, any real or seeming dis- 
crepancies do not affect their credibility, unless disproving the 
fundamental fact of Christ’s descent from Abraham and David. 


17That the Jews so regarded him is shown by Lightfoot on Luke iii. 23; Sepp, ii. 8. 

2 Robinson’s Harmony, 185 ; Alexander. 

3As to the use of ‘“‘son”’ to express the relation of ‘‘ grandson,”’ see Keil, in loco. 

#The opinions of modern scholars upon this point are about equally divided. Among 
those who regard Luke’s table as that of Mary, not of Joseph, are: Newcome, Robinson, 
Greswell, Lange, Wieseler, Riggenbach, Auberlen, Ebrard, Krafft, Bloomfield, Alexander, 
Oosterzee, Godet, Keil, Riddle, Weiss, who says that to refer Luke’s table to Joseph 
‘is exegetically impossible” ; contra, Alford, Meyer, Winer, Bleek, Fairbairn, Da Costa, 
Friedlieb, Patritius, Mill, Ellicott, Westcott, McClellan, Farrar, Sabbatier, Edersheim, 
‘smore likely.’ Pressensé thinks there are “‘ contradictions now insoluble.” 


66 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part 1 


But in this fact both tables agree, and any minor inaccuracies, 
if there be such, are unimportant.’ 


That Joseph was the legal heir to the throne of David, his 
relation to Jesus, the promised Messiah, sufficiently shows. 
Whether he and Mary were the only surviving descendants of 
David we have no positive data to decide, but it is not prob- 
able; for, if they had been the sole survivors, this very fact, which 
could not have been unknown, must have made them con- 
spicuous. Hegesippus? makes mention of the grandchildren of 
Judas, the brother of the Lord, who were brought before 
Domitian, as being of David’s race. Not improbably there 
were many in more or less distant affinity to this royal family. 
It has been supposed by some that the residence of Joseph and 
Mary, so far from their ancestral seat, in despised Galilee, and 
in one of its most obscure villages, is to be explained by the 
fact that they were generally known to be of David’s line, and 
so exposed to the jealousy of Herod.’ But of this there is no 
proof. It is rather to be explained as a sign of the fallen state 
of that once royal house.. Its members were now amongst the 
humblest of the people, too humble to arouse the jealousy of the 
Idumzan usurper. We do not learn that in the course of his 
reign he took any precautionary measures against any of the 
descendants of David, looking upon them as claimants of the 
throne. They seem to have sunk wholly out of public sight. 
Yet, on the other hand, the expectation that the Messiah should 
spring from the house of David was strong and general. How 
can these facts be reconciled? If the people were really looking 
for a Messiah descended from that family, must not all who 
were known to be members of it have occupied a large space in 
public attention ? 

Perhaps the following may be the just solution of the diffi- 
culty. The promise made to David and his house respecting 


1 Those who wish to see the questions respecting the divisions in Matthew’s tables, his 
abridgments ana omissions, and the relations of his table to that of Luke, will find all 
points fully treated by Mill, 147. See also Ebrard, 188, and the Dubia Evangelica of 
Spanheim, Pars Prima. 

2In Eusebius, iii. 20. 3 So Bucher. 

* According to Mill (285), it was with the view to obviate this national expectation that 
Herod, two years before his death, imposed an oath of fidelity to Caesar and himself. 
This is hardly werranted by the language of Josephus. 


Part I.] THE TWO GENEALOGIES. 67 


the throne of Israel was not absolute. (2 Sam. vii. 12, etc.) 
Its fulfilment was to depend upon the condition of obedience. 
Yet, if the condition failed, the promise was not withdrawn. 
His descendants were not reduced to the rank of private citizens, 
but its fulfilment was suspended, and their kingly claims were 
in abeyance. After the return from the captivity of Babylon, 
the house of David, at first prominent in Zerubbabel, fell more 
and more into obscurity. Other families began to be more 
prominent. At last the Maccabees, through their wisdom and 
valor, won the highest place, and became the acknowledged 
heads of the nation — both the civil and ecclesiastical chiefs. 
After their decay the family of Herod, through Roman favor, 
became dominant. During these 400 years no one of David’s 
lineage seems to have been conspicuous, or in any way to have 
drawn to himself public attention; and probably little faith 
existed among the people at large that the divine promise would 
have any fulfilment in that house. But the Messianic hopes of 
the Jews had, during the wars of the Maccabees and under the 
usurpation of Herod, been constantly gaining in depth and 
strength. (Hdersheim, i. 62.) Everywhere they began to turn 
to their Scriptures, and to read them with new earnestness and 
faith. And as the expectation of the Messiah became and more 
prevalent, it was naturally connected with the promise to David, 
and we know that the Lord was addressed often as “Son of 
David.” (See John vii. 42.) Yet among his descendants there 
was no one to whom public attention was turned as in any way 
likely to fulfil their hopes. Hence, while a general belief 
existed that the Messiah should be of that family, its individual 
members continued to live in obscurity. And, as it was also 
firmly believed that Elijah the prophet must personally come 
as the forerunner of the Messiah, this belief would naturally 
prevent any special attention being turned to them till the 
prophet actually appeared. Thus Joseph, the carpenter of 
Nazareth, might have been known by some to be of David’s 
line, and even the legal claimant of the throne, and yet live un- 
honored and unnoticed. 

Nazareth and its geographical position will hereafter be 
more particularly spoken of. It is disputed where Mary was 


68 THR LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part L 


when the angel visited her to announce the Lord’s birth. The 
Greek Church affirms that she was not at her own house when 
he came, but had gone to the fountain of the village, and that he 
found her there.? Over this fountain, the source of the present 
one, to which its waters are conducted by a stone aqueduct, the 
Greeks have built a church which is called the Church of the 
Annunciation. The Latins affirm that the angel found her ina 
grotto, over which stood the house that was carried in the thir- 
teenth century by angels, first to Dalmatia, and thence to Italy, 
where it still remains.* The exact places in this grotto where 
the angel and the virgin stood during their interview are marked 
out by two pillars. Over this grotto now stands a church, 
which is said to be, after that of the Holy Sepulchre, the most 
beautiful in Syria. Tradition also points out the workshop of 
Joseph, now a Latin chapel. The time of Gabriel’s appearance 
was, according to Bengel (in loco), at evening, vespert, ut proba- 
bile est. (See Dan. ix. 21.) 


Marcu — Aprin, 749. 5 B.c. 


Immediately after the visit of the angel Mary left Nazareth, LUKE i. 39-56. 
and went to the home of Zacharias in the hill-country of Judah, 
and remained there about three months. 


It has been supposed that Mary remained at Nazareth sev- 
eral weeks before visiting Elisabeth, and that during this period 
the events related by Matthew (i. 18-25) occurred.* But with 
this, Luke’s statement (i. 39), that ‘she went with haste into the 
hill-country,” is inconsistent ; for going with haste cannot refer 
merely to the rapidity of the journey after it was begun, but to 
the fact that she made no delay in commencing it. Hug refers 
to a traditionary law that virgins should not travel, and that 
therefore Joseph must previously have taken her home as his 
wife. Alford says that ‘“‘as a betrothed virgin she could not 
travel,” but cites no authority. But if any such law were at this 
time in force, which is very doubtful, Mary may have journeyed 


1 See Hofmann, 74. 2 See Protevangelium Jacobi, ch. ii.; Baed., 362. 

3 Sce Baronius, who affirms that no one should doubt respecting the reality of this 
miracle. In refutation, Stanley, 439. 

# Porter, ii. 361; Stewart, 445. 5 Ebrard, Alford. 


Part I.] MARY'S VISIT TO ELISABETH. 69 


in company with friends, or under the special protection of a 
servant, or with a body of neighbors going up to the Passover. 
That no unmarried female could journey even to visit her friends 
is incredible. ‘The incidental mention of women and children 
in the great assemblies gathered around Jesus is true to Oriental 
life, strange as it may appear to those who read so much about 
female seclusion in the Hast. In the great gatherings of this 
day, at funerals, weddings, feasts, and fairs, women and children 
often constitute the largest portion of the assemblies.”* Ebrard’s 
supposition (222) that Mary continued at Nazareth till certain 
suspicious women, the pronube, informed Joseph of her condi- 
tion, and that then God made known to him what had occurred, 
has nothing in its favor. As little basis has the supposition that 
she told Joseph of the visit of the angel.” The narrative plainly 
implies that Mary, without communicating to him, or any one 
else, what had taken place, departed immediately to seek Elisa- 
beth. That under the peculiar circumstances in which she was 
placed she should greatly desire to see Elisabeth, was natural, 
and it is most improbable that she should wait several weeks. 
The whole narrative shows that neither Elisabeth nor Mary 
rashly forestalled God’s action by premature revelation. Both, 
full of faith, waited in quietness and silence till He should reveal 
in His own way what He had done. Perhaps the expression 
(Luke i. 56), “she returned to her own house,” ei¢ rév oikoy 
airnc, May imply that she had not yet been taken to the house 
of Joseph. 

The distance from Nazareth to Jerusalem is about eighty 
miles,‘ and if Zacharias lived at Hebron, seventeen miles south of 
Jerusalem, the whole journey would occupy four or five days. 
Several routes were open to Mary. The most direct was by 
Nain and Endor, and through Samaria and southward by 
Bethel. If for any cause Samaria was to be avoided, the Jordan 
could be crossed near Scythopolis, and the way followed through 
Perea along its eastern bank. This was the common route with 
the Jews in their journeyings to the feast, if they wished spe- 


1 Thomson, ii. 84. 2 So Lange. 
3 So Tischendorf, Robinson, Lichtenstein, Edersheim, 
+ Kitto, Sepp, 80-90 Roman miles ; others, more, 


70 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part L 


cially to avoid Samaria. Still a third way was by Dor on the 
sea-coast, passing through Lydda, and thence over the mountains 
of Ephraim. 


JunE, 749. 5 B.C. 


A little before the birth of John, Mary returns to Nazareth ; 
Joseph, seeing her condition, is minded to put her away priv- Marv. i, 18-25, 
ily, but is commanded by God, through an angel, to take her 
home as his wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the 
Holy Ghost. He obeys the word, and takes Mary as his wife. 
Elisabeth gives birth to a son, who is circumcised on the eighth LuKe i. 57-80. 
day, aud named John in obedience to angelic direction. 

Whether Mary left Elisabeth before or after John’s birth, is 
not expressly stated, but the most natural construction of the 
narrative is that it was before.’ 

The interval that had elapsed between the Annunciation and 
Mary’s return from Juda, was sufficient to make manifest to 
Joseph her condition. That she at this time informed him of 
the visit of the angel, and of the divine promise, is not said in 
so many words, but is plainly implied. The position in which 
Joseph was now placed was one of great perplexity ; and as a 
just man who desired to mete out to every one that which was 
his due, he was, on the one hand, unwilling to take her under 
such imputation of immorality, yet, on the other hand, unwilling 
to condemn her where there was a possibility of innocence. He 
therefore determined to put her away privately, which he could 
lawfully do, and so avoid the necessity of exposing her to pub- 
lic disgrace, or of inflicting upon her severe punishment. 
While yet in doubt as to his proper course, the angel of the 
Lord, in a dream, confirmed the statement of Mary, and directed 
him to call her son by the name of Jesus, as the future Saviour 
of His people. Agreeably to the divine commandment, Joseph 
took Mary at once to his own house as his wife. 

While these things were taking place in Galilee, John was 
born in Juda, and was circumcised at the legal time. It was 
customary to join the giving of the name with the performance 
of this rite. This custom seems to have originated in the fact 
that Abraham's name was changed at the time he was circum 





4So Keil, McClellan, Pressensé; contra, Godet. 


Part I.} JOSEPH TAKES MARY HOME. 71 


cised (Gen. xvii. 23). The name John, given the Baptist by 
the angel, is of importance, as showing the purpose of God in 
his ministry. It means “the Grace of Jehovah,” or, “one whom 
Jehovah bestows,” and indicated that God was about to begin 
an economy of grace, in distinction from the economy of the 
law. His ministry, like that of Jesus, was for mercy, not for 
judgment. i 


December, 749. 5 B.C. 


In consequence of an edict that all the world should be 
taxed, Joseph and Mary leave Nazareth to goto Bethlehem, Lukz ii. 1-5. 
the city of David, to be taxed there. 

The chronological and other questions connected with this 
taxing are undoubtedly among the most perplexing which meet 
us in the whole Gospel narrative. The former have been 
already considered, but the latter demand acareful examination. 
Before we proceed to consider them, let us note the character of 
the Evangelist’s statements, and his general purpose. 

Turning to Luke’s words (ii. 1-3), we find that he speaks in 
very brief and comprehensive terms. An edict had been issued 
by the Emperor Cesar Augustus, ‘that all the world should be 
taxed ; and this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was gov- 
ernor of Syria.” In obedience to this edict, all went to be 
taxed, each into his own city. This is all the information the 
Evangelist gives. He does not say when this edict was issued, 
nor what were its peculiar features, nor give any account of its 
execution, except inJudza. Its only apparent value to him, and 
the only cause that leads him to mention it, is that it was the 
occasion that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem. He 
therefore speaks of it only in the most general way, and we can- 
not learn from him whether it was a mere enrollment of persons, 
or also a census of property; whether it was carried on by gov- 
ernors of provinces, or by special commissions; whether it was 
executed at once, or after a lapse of time, or in various provinces 
at various times. He is concerned only with its immediate rela- 
tions to the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem, and does not mention 
even the manner of its execution in Judza, whether by Herod 
and his officers, in obedience to imperial direction, or by a special 
commissioner from Rome, or by the governor of some adjoining 


72 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part L 


province. The manner of its execution had no interest for him. 
Its more important and long disputed historical points we now 
proceed to examine. 


In our examination of this subject we shall consider: ist. The 
nature and extent of this taxing; 2d. The proof that it actually 
took place; 3d. Its connection with Cyrenius. — 

I. Nature and extent of this taxing. 

The word (droypa¢%), rendered ‘‘taxing” A. V., ‘‘ enrollment” 
R. V., is defined as ‘‘an enrollment on the public record of persons 
together with their property and income, as the basis of a valuation 
drorlunots, 7. €., how much tax should be levied upon each one” (T. 
G. Lex.). This would seem to distinguish the enrollment or registra- 
tion of persons from the subsequent valuation of property; a distinc- 
tion, indeed, which lies in the nature of the case. It may, however, 
be questioned whether this definition is not too narrow. The term 
seems often to have been applied to registrations of persons for other 
purposes than taxation, as to ascertain the number of inhabitants in a 
given province, how many men were fit to be soldiers, and for other 
statistical ends (Zumpt, 95). But that Luke uses it here with refer- 
ence to taxation, we may believe, since the Jews were free from mili- 
tary service; and we see no good reason why Joseph and Mary should 
go to Bethlehem simply to be numbered as citizens. The opposite view 
is taken by Greswell (i. 541): ‘‘The census at the nativity paid no 
regard to the value of property. . . Joseph and Mary went to 
Bethlehem, not because they possessed any property there, but because 
they belonged to the house and family of David.” It was an enroll- 
ment per capita. So Weiss (Leben Jesu, i. 250), holds that the edict 
does not refer to a valuation for the purpose of taxation, but was an 
administrative measure commanding a general enumeration of the 
people. It is said by Zumpt, 96, ‘‘the word ‘taxing’ has no exact 
meaning; it sometimes includes an estimate of property and some- 
times not.” On the other hand, it is held by Meyer that the words 
‘should be taxed” or ‘‘enrolled” must be regarded as a direct regis- 
tration into the tax list. 

In looking at the taxing as a whole, there seem to be three suc- 
cessive acts clearly distinguishable: 1. That of registration or enroll- 
ment, an act done by an official, but demanding the personal pres- 
ence of those whom he registered, or of their legal representatives. 
(droypdderOa, ‘to get onesself registered”). 2. Preparation by an 
official of the tax lists, based upon the registration, and called 
awoypadal, tabule censorine ; these were preserved till the next census. 
3. The collection of the taxes as assessed upon the lists. Some inter- 


Part 1.) THE TAXING OF AUGUSTUS. 73 


val of time must have elapsed between each of these several acts, and 
it may have been a considerable one. It is probable that, as their 
names were enrolled, the amount of their property and income was 
stated by them as the basis of the subsequent assessment. 

That Luke elsewhere uses the word droypa¢7, ‘‘in the days of the 
taxing ” (Acts v. 37), as embracing all these several steps, is proba- 
ble, for it was apparently the collection of the tax that incited the 
rebellion. (Jos. Antiq., xviii. 1.1.) But it does not follow that he so 
uses it here. Joseph and Mary were registered at Bethlehem, but 
does this imply that all the successive steps were taken while they 
were there — the tax list completed, and the taxes paid? It is greatly 
improbable that anything more than the registration of the name 
and the amount of taxable property then took place. 

To whom did this enrollment apply? Luke says that ‘‘all the 
world should be taxed” —racap rip olkouuévnv. This is the phrase 
generally applied to the Roman empire — orbis terrarum—and must 
be so understood here, and not limited, as some have said, to the 
province of Judwa. (Lardner, i. 267; Lewin, 109. But Wieseler 
confines it to the provinces, since Italy was not subject to taxation.) 

We conclude, then, that this edict ordering an enrollment had as 
its ultimate end taxation, and that its operation was to extend 
through the whole Roman empire. 

Il. The proof as to its execution, the manner and time. It is not 
necessary here to discuss the manner of the Roman census. It is ad- 
mitted that Roman citizens distinctively so called, whether in Italy 
or elsewhere, were not subject to direct taxation. We are concerned 
only with the provinces.’ 

Let us note, first, the antecedent probability of such an edict. 
That Augustus, now become absolute master of a kingdom composed 
of many heterogeneous and discordant provinces, should attempt to 
bring them all under some equable and uniform system of government, 
is only what we should expect of one who had in an eminent degree 
the large and comprehensive mind of a statesman, and in this he only 
carried out the measures begun by Julius Cesar, whose general 
policy he adopted. The intrinsic difficulties were very great, and he 
must proceed cautiously and slowly. It is very unlikely that he 
would disregard tne peculiarities of the several provinces, and carry 
out everywhere at the same time and under all circumstances the 
same modes of taxation. The end to be reached was a general 
and uniform system, but he was far too wise a man to hasten matters 


1The more recent discussions of this question are by Zumpt, Geburtsjahr, 90, ff.; 
Wieseler, Beitrige, 16; Woolsey, Bib. Sacra, 1870, 294. 


4 


74 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part L 


prematurely, or to force disagreeable measures upon his disaffected 
provinces. (It is said by Woolsey, New Englander, 706, 1869, ‘‘a 
settled plan was pursued, which looked toward a complete estimate 
of property and population for the Roman world.”’) 

If, then, the statement of Luke that Augustus made a decree that 
all the world should be taxed, be taken in its larger sense as a 
declaration of his fixed policy to establish a uniform system of taxa- 
tion throughout the empire, probably including Italy, it has abundant 

‘confirmation. But if Luke’s language be taken literally, and the 
note of time -‘in these days” (ii. 1) be limited to the events spoken 
of in chapter I, — perhaps a period of one or two years, — we must 
confess that we have no other proof of it than his statement. But 
there is nothing intrinsically improbable in it, if we do not press his 
words so far as to make him assert that this enrollment was carried 
out everywhere in the same manner and at the same time. He is in- 
terested only in showing the application of this edict to Judza as 
determining the place of the Lord’s birth. (But see Steinmeyer, 
40.) 

That Augustus three times held a census has been already men- 
tioned in the discussion respecting the time of the Lord’s birth, but 
that any of them embraced the provinces is in dispute; the weight of 
authority seems to be against it. It is also in dispute whether in all 
these there was both an enumeration of Roman citizens and a census 
of property. 

It is objected to the statement of Luke that no mention is made 
of an edict by the Roman historians. (Lardner, i. 267. See Wieseler, 
Beitrige, 51.) But in the history of Dio Cassius there is a great gap 
from 747-757, —the very period in which Luke states this taxing to 
have been held. Suetonius is very brief, as also Tacitus, The 
argument, therefore, from the silence of contemporary writers, is of 
little force, and, if pushed to its extreme, would compel us to believe 
that no important event took place in the long reign of Augustus, of 
which the few historians, whose works remain to us in whole or in 
part, have not made specific mention. It has often heen remarked 
how little attention historians of that time gave to the most important 
measures of civil administration in comparison with military affairs, 
and even in comparison with things of a momentary popular interest, 
as games, public buildings, and the like. Zumpt (148) gives an 
illustration in Dio Cassius, who mentions some of the edifices built 
by Agrippa, but does not mention his map of the world, of incom- 
parably greater importance. 

But, if there is no direct historical mention of the edict, there is 
much strong incidental evidence @f it. — 


Part 1.] THE TAXINC OF AUGUSTUS. 75 


1, That there was a geometrical survey of the empire, which, if 
not commenced by Augustus but by Julius Cxsar just before his 
death, was continued by him. (Wies., Syn., 81, Beitrige, 55; 
Sepp, i. 1835; Zumpt, 130; Woolsey, N. Eng., 704.) Of the Roman 
chorographic maps, Merivale (iv. 426) says: ‘‘ The labors of a quarter 
of a century produced, no doubt, a complete registration of the size, 
the figure, and other natural features of every province, district, and 
astate throughout the empire.” But this survey, if carried out in the 
provinces under Augustus, which is denied by some, was not accom- 
panied by a census; it can be regarded only as preparatory to one, 
and in the interest of a better taxation. 

2. The Breviariuwn imperti. We know from Tacitus (Annal, i. 
xi.) that Augustus had a little book, which he had written out with 
his own hand, and which contained accounts of the numbers of 
soldiers, of the taxes, imposts, and the like: Opes publicae contineban- 
tur. Quantum civium, sociorumque, in arnvis; quas classes, regna, pro- 
vincae tributa, aut vectigalia et necessitates et largitones, quae cuncta sua 
manu perscripserat Augustus. This Breviarium imperii is mentioned 
also by Suetonius and Dio Cassius, and must have been based upon 
government examinations of all parts of the empire. According to 
Prideaux, it was probably something of the same kind as the Dooms- 
day Book of William the Conqueror. This much, at least, is fairly to 
be inferred from these labors of Augustus, that he had made an ex- 
amination of the provinces of the empire as to their resources and 
capacities, and with reference to their respective contributions in 
men and money for the support of the government. Weiss remarks 
that if Augustus procured memoranda estimating the population, the 
number capable of bearing arms, the extent to which the whole 
country, including allies, was available for revenue, this involved 
throughout the empire just such estimates of the people as this in 
Luke. But that he then ordered a general census is not shown. 

3. Into the statements of individuals of later time which affirm or 
imply a general census, we cannot here enter. One of the most im- 
portant of these is Cassiodorus (6th century.) It is said by him that 
in the days of Augustus there was a census of the Roman world — 
orbis Romanus; that there were measurements of the lands for taxable 
purposes; and that the records of these measurements had been pre- 
served, and were still to be seen. To this statement many give 
credit.‘ But others think that Cassiodorus only repeats in part the 
account of Luke, and cannot be considered as an independent witness. 
(So Moramsen quoted by Zumpt. Woolsey says, Bib. Sacra, 300: ‘‘We 
cannot receive it with full confidence.”’) 


1 Zumpt, 149, Wies. Beitrige, 53. 


76 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part L 


A statement made by some unknown writer is found in Suidas 
(Lex. s. y. droypag¢%) to the effect that Augustus sent forth throughout 
the empire twenty men of distinction, who made censuses of both 
persons and property, and apparently established some rules of taxa- 
tion. This statement is received as substantially true by many 
(Zumpt, 155; Wies., Beitrage, 153; Woolsey, McClellan; contra, 
Schirer, Sevin). 

4. Historical evidence of several provincial censuses. As Rome 
extended its conquests, each new province was made to pay tribute, 
but usually it was collected after the old local manner. Thus there 
was great diversity of usage, and necessarily much inequality and 
complaint. Augustus, whose aim was to consolidate the empire and 
centralize his authority, seems early to have determined to equalize 
the pecuniary burdens, and establish some general fiscal system, 
perhaps with the intent ultimately to establish in Italy, also, direct 
taxation; but if so, it was not carried out. (Zumpt (159) dates this 
determination as early as 27 B.C.) It was at this time that a division 
of the provinces into imperial and senatorial took place, and that 
Augustus began to carry out his purpose to introduce into his prov- 
inces some uniformity of taxation; whether it then embraced any of 
the senatorial provinces, we do not know. But the condition of a 
province, whether long conquered, well settled, and peaceful, or a new 
conquest, and so disaffected and restless, would affect both the time 
and manner of his action. Hence we are not to look for the same 
measures in all the provinces, and, in point of fact, we find them very 
unequal. 

Into details respecting these provincial censuses it is impossible 
here to enter. Schirer (270) admits that in Augustus’ time most 
of the provinces were taxed. We can only refer to some of the re- 
cent writers who have fully discussed them. (See Wies., Beitrige, 

60 ff.; Zumpt, 164 ff.; Woolsey, briefly in New Englander, 1869, 710; 
Schirrer.) 

To the objection that an enrollment under Herod would then 
have caused an insurrection, it may be said that there was a very 
serious insurrection just after his death, and before his will was con- 
firmed by Augustus. Josephus (Antiq., xvii. 10) says: ‘‘ The whole 
nation was in tumult,” and plainly thinks the rebellion at this 
time of much more consequence than that which followed the taxing 
in 760. He, however, does not mention this enrollment, and leaves 
his readers at some loss to know why such an insurrection should 
then have broken out. 





Part I.] TAXING OF AUGUSTUS. 77 


Ill. The connection of this enrollment with Quirinius.? 

But before this point is examined, we must ask, what is the right 
rendering of Luke’s words (ii. 2)? In Teatus Receptus the article is 
inserted: avrn 4 droypagj. In W. and H. the text is avrn droypady 
mparn éyévero Tryeuovetovros THs Zuplas Kupynviov. In A. V. ‘‘ This taxing 
was first made when Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governor of Syria.” 
In R. Y., ‘‘This was the first enrollment made when Quirinius was 
governor of Syria.” Both translations are ambiguous. 

The point whether this verse is to be regarded as a parenthesis, 
is for us not very important. It is parenthetical in the A. V. and in 
the translations of Norton and Noyes, and in the Greek of W. and 
H., but not in the R. VY. or in most versions. The objection to re- 
garding is as a parenthesis is, that, so taken, verse 3d must be read: 
** All the citizens of the Roman empire went to be taxed, every one 
into his own city.” If the second verse be wholly omitted, the con- 
tinuity of the statement would not be broken; but with it, the ap- 
plication of the decree may be limited to a given country and time. 

The more important renderings of this verse are the following: 

1. This first taxing was made—carried into effect— when Q. 
was governor of Syria. 

2. This taxing was first made — carried into effect — when Q., etc. 

3. This taxing itself, airy for‘avry, i. e., its last stage, as distinct 
from the earlier, was first made by Q. 

4, This taxing was before, or earlier than, the governorship of 
Q. 

5. This was the first taxing under Q. as distinguished from a 
second, either (a) under him (So Meyer, Zumpt); or (0) under another 
official who is not mentioned (so Woolsey). 

6. This taxing was first made when Q. was acting officially in 
Syria, either (2) as one of two governors, or (6) as a special census 
agent. 

To determine the right rendering of Luke’s words is the province 
of exegesis, and it is evident that till the exegetes are agreed much 
uncertainty must enter into our historical inquiries. 

We will assume that rendering to be correct which affirms that 
this was the first taxing or enrollment under Quirinius as distin- 
guished from a second under him. But for several of the other 
renderings may be cited names of very high authority. 


1 All points connected with Quirinius have been most thoroughly discussed by Zumpt: 
first, in his essay, de Syria Romanorum Provincia. in the second volume of his Com- 
ment. Epigr., ad Antig. Rom. pertinent., Berol., 1854; second, in his Das Geburtsjahr 
Christi, 1869, 20-89. They are also discussed by Wieseler, Beitrage, 1869, 16-107; by Wool- 
sey, New Englander, 1869, 682; by Schiirer, art. Cyrenius in Riehm; Winer, art. Quirinius. 


78 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part L 


We now inquire, what knowledge have we of Quirinius? What 
we know is chiefly derived from Tacitus (Annals, iii. 48). He was 
of low origin, a bold soldier, and attained a consulship under 
Augustus in 742, and was afterward proconsul in the province of 
Africa. After this he conquered the Homomadenses, a rude people 
living in Cilicia, and obtained a triumph. He was subsequently 
made rector to Caius Caesar when the latter was appointed governor 
of Armenia. At what time, and in what capacity, did he carry on 
the war against the Homonadenses? There is no question that it 
was between 747 and 753, for in the last year he was made rector to 
C. Caesar, and this was after the war. In what capacity did he 
carry it on? This was thoroughly examined by Zumpt, who reached 
the conclusion that he was then acting as governor of Syria, having 
succeeded Varus in 750, and continued in this office till 753. In the 
fact of this governorship, Mommsen, Schirer, and Woolsey agree 
with Zumpt. 

Taking, then, the fact as sufficiently established, can we reach 
any more definite result as to the time of this governorship? Zumpt 
gives the following list of Syrian governors: 


748-750, 64 B. C., P. Q. Varus. 
750-753, 4-1 ‘ P. 8. Quirinius. 
7538-757, 1B. C.-3 A. C., M. Lollius. 
V57-758, 3-4 . C. M. Censorinus, 
758-760, 4-6 . L. V. Saturninus. 
760-765, 6-11 +s P. S. Quirinius. 


With the accuracy of this list, in general, we are not concerned; our 
present inquiry is only as to the length of the first administration of 
Quirinius. That he succeeded Varus in 750 is accepted by Schirer 
and others. He is not, indeed, mentioned by Josephus, but of 
what took place during the rule of Archelaus, 750-760, this historian 
says very little, nor does he mention the name of any Syrian governor 
after Varus till Quirinius in 760. We have thus a period from the 
end of the administration of Varus, probably in summer of 750, to 760, 
when Archelaus was deposed, about which we know very little. 

Comparing this list of Zumpt’s with that of Schirer (I. i. 350 ff.), 
we find some chronological differences. The following is the order 
of Schirer: 

748-750, 64B.C., P. Q. Varus. 


751-752? 3-2 * P. S. Quirinius. 
753-757, 1B.C.—4 A.C., C. Caesar. 
757-758, 45 A.C., L. V. Saturninus. 


759— 6 < P. S. Quirinins, 





| 
: 


Part I.] TAXING OF AUGUSTUS, 79 


Schiirer thinks that as Caesar had proconsular authority, there 
were during his administration no governors in Syria. This is said 
also by Woolsey (New Englander, 691). Gerlach (84) does not insert 
Quirinius in his list of Syrian governors, regarding him as legatus 
Caesaris proconsulari potestate, and as such taking the census. 

If, then, we accept, as historically proved, that Quirinius was 
governor of Syria either from 750-753 or from 751-752, of what im- 
portance is this fact ? 

As we have seen in the chronological discussion, the Lord was 
born about the end of 749, and before the administration of Quirinius 
began; and, therefore, the enrollment which brought the Lord's par- 
ents to Bethlehem could not have been under him as governor of Syria, 
but was under some preceding governor. Why, then, does Luke men- 
tion the name of Q. in connection with this enrollment? Two ex- 
planations are given: First, that the decree was issued, and the pre- 
parations for the census begun under Saturninus, 746-8, or under 
Varus, 748-50, but the census was continued and finished under 
Quirinius. (See Zumpt, 219.) In this view of the matter there is 
nothing intrinsically improbable. The census taken as a whole 
might be referred to Saturninus who began it, or Quirinius who 
finished it. 

It will be kept in mind that Luke does not affirm that Q. was 
governor at the time of the Lord’s birth; he affirms a decree 
of Augustus, and that He was born after the decree began to be ex- 
ecuted in Judea. It is evident that if the execution of the decree, 
from the first stage to the last, took place under one Syrian governor- 
ship, then He was born under it; but if the execution embraced a longer 
period, He might have been born under an earlier administration. 
The enrollment might have been begun by one, and been continued 
by a second, and finished by a third; the mention of Q. is no proof 
that the Lord was born under his administration. The point is as to 
the execution of the decree, whether begun or completed under any 
one governor. 

The second explanation is by those who think that Quirinius, in 
carrying on the first census, was not governor of Syria, but acted in 
some other official capacity, perhaps as procurator or fiscal governor 
of Syria. (So McClel., 398.) In this case he may have been connected 
with the census from the first. Or he may have been an extraordi- 
nary commissioner acting under Saturninus or Varus, or jointly with 
them, or perhaps as their official superior: or as governor of Syria at 
the same time with Varus. 

We can readily see that if the initial steps of the taxing had been 


80 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part L. 


taken under Varus, 748-750, and that under him just at the close of 
his administration Joseph and Mary were enrolled, and the final steps 
were taken under the governorship of Quirinius, Luke might well 
mention the name of Q. only. 

We come now to the much disputed question, whether the state- 
ment of Luke as to the application of this policy to Judwa at this 
time is to be received? The objection is vigorously urged that 
Herod was a rex socius—an allied king, and that all taxes in his 
dominion must, therefore, have been levied by himself. (As to the 
position of a vex socius, see Schiirer, I. i. 1.449.) But it is difficult to 
see how Herod was entitled, in fact, to be called a rex socius, since the 
term means one allied, in commercial language, a partner, and socii, 
the nations in alliance with Rome. Herod was wholly the creature 
of Augustus; originally set as king, not as having any hereditary 
claims, or being even of Jewish descent, but because he could be a 
useful instrument in the hands of the Romans. He was hated of the 
Jews both as an alien and as of a cruel and despotic nature, and he 
held the throne only through the fear which the Roman support in- 
spired. It was never a question with Augustus what Herod wished, 
but what his own interests demanded. Josephus mentions many 
instances, showing how far he was subjected all his reign to the 
emperor and to his representatives, the governors of Syria. (Wies., 
Syn., 96, Beitrage, 79.) A clear proof of this is seen in the fact that 
the Jews were forced to take the oath of allegiance to Augustus as 
well as to Herod. (Joseph., Antiq., xvii. 2. 4.) 

To say, then, that Augustus would, from regard to any royal 
rights of Herod, make him an exception, and not carry out his 
general policy of taxation in his dominions, is to make the Roman 
ruler a constitutional monarch of the modern type, and to attribute 
to him a softness of disposition which is indicated by no other acts 
of his public life. And there may have been special reasons why, 
before the death of Herod, known to be near his end, and his 
sons quarreling about the succession, Augustus should have had this 
enrollment made; for he must have foreseen the probability, if he 
had not already formed the determination, that his kingdom should 
speedily be made a Roman province. (As to taxation in allied states, 
see Zumpt, 183, Schiirer, I. i. 451 note.) 

Winer (ii. 399) seems to be wholly in the right in saying, that 
there was nothing in the pol'tical relations of Herod that would have 
prevented Augustus from applying the decree to his territories. In 
the Breviarium Imperii mention is made of the regna et socti, show: 
ing that they were included in the new policy of Augustus, 


Part 1.] TAXING OF AUGUSTUS. 81 


Nor was the payment of tribute to the Romans a thing to which 
the Jews were unaccustomed. They had been from the time of Pom- 
pey treated as a conquered people rather than as allies. When first 
brought into subjection by him, very heavy exactions were made, 
and later by Crassus. (Joseph., Antiq., xiv. 4.5.) It needs only a 
careful persual of the decrees of Caesar and the Senate (Joseph., xiv. 
10. 2-6) to see that the Romans looked upon Judea as a conquered 
province which had only such rights as they chose to confirm. 
(Joseph., War, ii. 16; Wies., Beitrage, 69 etc., and Stud. u. Krit., 
1875, 536.) 

Whether the Jews under Herod paid regular taxes to the Romans 
is in dispute. A distinction is doubtless to be taken between tribute 
and tax. It is admitted that Herod paid tribute to Antony, but 
denied by Schirer that he paid taxes to Augustus. But it is said by 
Wieseler (Beitrige, 98) that a poll tax was imposed by Julius 
Caesar as early as 707, and continued to be enforced. (As to taxes in 
general, see Winer, i. 5; Woolsey, Bib. Sacra, 309; and the Bible 
Dictionaries.) Zumpt (201) affirms that the first registration at the 
Lord’s birth was of persons, and that this was a new thing, as the 
Jews had probably at this time paid no capitation tax; but the second 
registration, after the deposition of Archelaus, was of property, and 
conducted after the Roman manner. It is said by Schiirer (Riehm, 
s. v. Cyrenius) that Palestine was an independent kingdom, put, 
indeed, under the supervision of the governor of Syria, but not under 
the immediate administration of the Roman officials. The last point 
may be admitted, and the fact remain that Herod was himself little 
more than a Roman official, having a certain liberty of action, 
but in no true sense of the term an independent king. Whether 
under him capitation and land taxes had been paid to the Romans 
does not materially affect the point that Augustus, near the close 
of Herod’s life, may have ordered an enrollment to be taken in 
his dominions. It would be a matter of course that as time went on, 
and Roman institutions found more and more entrance, the system 
of taxation in the provinces would take on it more and more of 
Roman modes. 


We conclude upon this much-disputed matter of the taxing, that 
we have not sufficient material, aside from Luke’s statements, for a 
decisive judgment either as to its nature or as to the connection of 
Quirinius with it. But it may be said that as our historical knowledge 
has been enlarged by new investigations, the accuracy of the Evangel- 
ist has been rather confirmed than weakened. It is evident that the 
last word as to these questions has not yet been spoken, 


4* 


82 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part L 


If Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem to be enrolled in the tax Rist, 
floes it show that they, one or beth, had property there? It is said by 
Luke that ‘‘all went to be taxed, every one to his own city ”; his own, 
not necessarily as having been born there, or as having possessions 
there, but as the original family seat — forum originis. The ground 
on which Joseph went, was that ‘‘ he was of the house and lineage 
of Dayid.” Woolsey (Bib. Sacra, 715) thinks there is ‘‘no proof 
that, after the return from captivity, lands reverted to particular 
tribes or families.” It is only conjecture whether Joseph owned 
any land at Bethlehem. But it is not improbable, as said by him, 
that ‘‘the principle of the tribe and lineage should be followed in 
the operations of the census.” And Roman usage seems to confirm 
this, if we give credit to Edersheim (i. 183, who refers to Huschke). 
‘‘ According to the Roman law, all country people went to be 
registered in their own city, meaning thereby the town to which the 
village or place where they were born was attached.” (As to the 
distinction in this respect between Roman and Jewish usages, Zumpt, 
194.) It has been said that Mary was the owner of land there, but 
there is no evidence whatever of it. It may be that the capitation 
tax, which was probably levied upon all alike, male and female, may 
have made it necessary for her to go with Joseph, but this is not 
certain (so Zumpt, 204); probably she was moved by other consider- 
ations. 


DecemBer, 749. 5 B. C. 


Upon the arrival] of Joseph and Mary at Bethelem, they could Luxsg ii. 6-7. 
find no room at the inn, and took refuge in a stable where the 
babe was born, and laid in the manger. 


The village of Bethlehem, “house of bread,” lies about five 
miles south of Jerusalem on the way to Hebron. There was 
another city or village of this name in Zebulon (Josh. xix. 15), 
whence this is called, to distinguish it, Bethlehem-Judah. It is 
not mentioned in the catalogues of the cities of Judah. In Gen. 
esis (xlviii. 7) itis called Ephrath, and in Micah (v. 2) Ephratah— 
an epithet given it because of its fruitfulness. It appears in 
Scripture chiefly in connection with the house of David, and 
seems never to have been a place of much importance. “The 
Jews are very silent of this city; nor do I remember that I 
have read anything in them concerning it besides those things 
which are produced out of the Old Testament” (Lightfoot). 
Micah speaks of it as little amongst the thousands of Judah. It 





Part I.] BETHLEHEM. 83 


was here that the fields of Boaz lay, in which Ruth gleaned 
(Ruth ii. 4); and here the son of Obed was born. Hither came 
Samuel, and anointed the youthful David to be the successor of 
Saul. That the Messiah should be born here was expressly de- 
clared by the prophet Micah (v. 2); and the Jews seem to have 
had no question as to his meaning, nor ever to have doubted the 
literal fulfillment of the prophecy. (Matt. ii. 6; John vii. 42 ) 

Bethlehem lies on the eastern brow of a ridge that runs 
from east to west, a mile in length, and is surrounded by hills. 
From the highest point of the ridge — 2,537 feet —there is an 
extensive view toward the south and east, in the direction of 
Jericho, the Dead Sea, and the mountains of Moab beyond. 
There are deep valleys both on the south and north; that on 
the north stretches toward Jerusalem, and in it olives, figs, al- 
mond-groves, and vineyards are found. The village has one 
street, broad, but not thickly built. The present inhabitants are 
chiefly occupied in the manufacture of holy trinketsand relics, 
beads, crosses, etc., for the pilgrims who visit Jerusalem. There 
are no Jews living here, and it is said that a Protestant church 
and hospice are soon to be built. 

The exact spot where the Lord was born has been the sub- 
ject of earnest investigation and of zealous controversy. All 
the information upon this point that the Scriptures give, is con- 
tained in the words of Luke, that when Joseph and Mary ar- 
rived at Bethlehem, they could find no place at the inn, or khan, 
katadAvya, and that when Jesus was born, she was compelled to 
put the new-born babe in a manger, ¢dtv7. From this state- 
ment some have inferred that the manger was in a stall con- 
nected with the inn itself ;? but this is hardly consistent with 
other features of the narrative. That the place in which she 
took refuge was a stall, or room where cattle were lodged, may 
fairly be inferred from the mention of a manger. Keil supposes 
that some friendly hosts received them, and gave them the stable, 
then empty, the cattle being in the fields. 

The place now shown as the Lord’s birthplace is a cave 
southeast from the town, and covered by the Latin convent. 


1 This is understood by Geikie to be ‘“‘a guest-chamber,” as in Mark xiv. 14; but see 
T. G. Lex., and Udersheim, i. 185. 
2 Wilson, Lands of the Bible, i. 392; Kitto, Life of Christ, 62; Farrar. 


84 THE LIFE OF OUR LURD. [Part L 


The tradition that connects this cave with His birth is very 
ancient.’ Robinson (ii. 416) speaks of it as ‘reaching back at 
least to the middle of the second century.” Justin Martyr (150 
A. D.) mentions it ; as also Origen about a hundred years later. 
Queen Helena erected a church over it (325 A. D.). Here 
came Jerome (368 A. D.), and dwelt for many years. So far 
then as early tradition can authenticate a place, this seems well 
authenticated.? Edersheim says, ‘the best authenticated of all 
local traditions.” So Farrar, Ellicott. Yet there are objections 
which have led many to deny the truth of the tradition.* The 
point then demands some further examination. 


The objection, that Luke says nothing of a cave, is not important. 
His purpose is simply to show the humble and friendless state of the 
infant child, and this is done by the mention of the circumstances 
that there was no room for His parents in the inn, and that when He 
was born He was laidin a manger. Any other particulars were, for 
his purpose, unnecessary. 

A more important objection is that drawn from the fact, that tra- 
dition makes caves or grottoes to be the sites of so many remarkable 
events. That, as was long ago said by Maundrell, ‘‘ wherever you 
go, you find almost everything represented as done under ground,” 
naturally awakens our incredulity. Yet, on the other hand, they 
could not have been so generally selected for such sites, unless there 
were some grounds of fitness in the selection. The Scriptures, 
Josephus, and all travellers speak of the numerous caves that are 
found throughout Palestine. They were used for dwellings, for 
fortresses and places of refuge, for cisterns, for prisons, and for sep- 
ulchres. Travellers used them as inns, robbers as dens, herdsmen 
as stalls, husbandmen as granaries. Many of these caves were 
very large. One is mentioned (Judges xx. 47) large enough for six 
hundred men. Bonar,‘ in reference to the cave of Adullam, says 
‘you might spend days in exploring these vast apartments, for the 
whole mountain seems excavated, or, rather, honey-combed.” Pococke 
speaks of one large enough for thirty thousand men. 

These caves, so numerous in the light limestone formation of 
Juda, and easily wrought into any shape, and always dry, were 
naturally thus appiied to many uses. We need not be surprised to 
find them connecteu with many remarkable events and hallowed by 


1 See Thilo, Codex Apoc., i. 381, note. 
\ 2 See a full statement of the evidence in Patritius, iii. 293. 
3 So Ritter, Robinson. 4 Land of Promise. 246. 


Part LJ] CAVE OF THE NATIVITY. 85 


sacred associations. The traditions that connect them with the history 
of Jesus are neither to be indiscriminately received, nor indiscrimi- 
nately rejected. Whether a particular event did, or did not, take 
place in a grotto is to be judged of according to its intrinsic prob- 
ability, and the amount of evidence. While no unprejudiced per- 
son will be disposed to put the site of the Annunciation to Mary, or 
of the Agony, or of the Ascension, ina cave, yet all recognize the cave 
as a fitting place for the sepulchre. Whether a cave (either isolated 
or part of a house) was, or not, the birthplace of the Lord, must be 
judged of by its own merits. 

Thus looking upon this tradition, we find no sufficient reason why 
it should be wholly rejected. Probably there is some measure of 
truth in it. It is indeed hard to believe that the present artificial cave, 
so deep down and inaccessible, could ever haye been used as a stall for 
cattle. Perhaps the fact may be that the cave, in its original shape, 
was connected with a house, forming itsrear apartment, and used as 
a stable. (So Tristram.) To this house went Joseph and Mary, when 
they could find noroom at the inn, and when the child was born, it 
was laidin the manger as the most convenient place. Arculf (A. D. 
700),! describing the cave as it was in his day, says: “At the ex- 
treme eastern angle (of the ridge) there is a sort of natural half- 
cave, the outer part of which is said to haye been the place of our 
Lord’s birth ; the inside is called our Lord’s manger. The whole of 
this cave is covered within with precious marble.” Willibald (A. D. 
722) says: ‘‘The place where Christ was born was once a cave under 
the earth, but it is now a square house cut in the rock, and the 
earth is dug up and thrown from it all around, and a church is now 
built above it.” Thus the small cave that originally existed in the 
rear of the dwelling, and was used as a stable, has been gradually 
converted into its present shape. 

This view of the matter is defended by Thomson (ii. 533): ‘‘It 
is not impossible, to say the least, but that the apartment in which 
our Saviour was born was in fact a cave. I have seen many such, 
consisting of one or more rooms in front of, and including a cavern 
where the cattle were kept: It is my impression that the birth ac- 
tually took place in an ordinary house of some common peasant, and 
that the babe was laid in one of the mangers, such as are still found 
in the dwellings of the farmers of this region. That house may 
have stood where the convent does now, and some sort of a cave, 
either natural or made by digging the earth away for building and 
for the roofs of houses, may have been directly below, or even in- 


1 Early Travels, 6. 


86 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part L 


cluded within its court.” Elsewhere (ii. 98) he thus speaks of the 
manger, which he identifies with the ‘‘ crib” — ¢aérvy — mentioned by 
Isaiah (i. 3): ‘‘ It is common to find two sides of the one room, where 
the native farmer resides with his cattle, fitted up with these man- 
gers, and the remainder elevated about two feet higher for the ac- 
commodation of the family. The mangers are built of small stones 
and mortar in the shape of a box, or rather of a kneading-trough, and 
when cleaned up and white-washed, as they often are in summer, 
they do very well to lay little babes in. Indeed, our own children 
have slept there in our rude summer retreats on the mountains.” 


We may then conclude that tradition has not, in this case, 
erred. Thesite of the Lord’s birthplace must long have been 
remembered by the shepherds (Luke ii. 16), and been generally 
known in the regionround. But the present condition of the 
cave is doubtless very unlikeits original condition. It has been 
greatly enlarged and deepened, and space made in various di- 
rections for the various accessory grottoes and sepulchres which 
are now shown. In this way all the statements of Luke can be 
easily reconciled with the tradition. Here was the cave in the 
rear of the house, and used for cattle. Ina manger, as the most 
ready and fitting place, the babe was laid. Hither came the shep- 
herds to pay their adorations. (Whether Joseph and Mary were 
still here when the Magi came, some weeks later, is not certain; 
perhaps they had removed to some house — Matt. ii. 11 — 
though this may have been that connected with the cave.) These 
remarkable events would not easily pass from men’s memories, 
and some knowledge of the spot where they occurred could not 
well have escaped the early disciples. 

The church that now stands over the cave of the nativity 
was built by the Emperor Justinian upon the site of that built 
by the Empress Helena, A. D. 330. Adjoining it are the Latin, 
Greek, and Armenian convents, whose monks have a common 
interest in it for purposes of worship. It is now much dilapi- 
dated, though, as the oldest Christian church in the world, it 
continues to possess great architectural interest.” The cave of the 
nativity is 38 feet long by 11 wide, and a silver star in a mar- 
ble slab at the eastern end marks the precise spot where the 


1 Tobler’s Bethlehem, 104. 
2 For a plan of it and the crypt, see Baed., 246; Tristram, B. P., 74 


Part I.] THE ANGEL AND SHEPHERDS. 87 


Lord wasborn. Here isthe inscription : Hic de virgine Maria Jesus 
Christus natus est. Silver lamps are always burning around, and 
an altar stands near, which is used in turn by the monks of the 
convents. The manger in which the Lord was laid was taken 
to Rome by Pope Sixtus V., and placed in the church of St. 
Maria Maggiore, but its place is supplied by a marble one. A 
few feet opposite, an altar marks the spot where the Magi stood. 
The walls are covered with silken hangings. 

The usual exaggeration of tradition may be seen in the 
many apocryphal sites gathered around the central one. In ad- 
joining grottoes are shown the chapel of Joseph and the chapel 
of the Innocents, where the children murdered by Herod were 
buried. A stone is also shown that marks the spot where, in 
the firmament above, the star stood still that guided the Magi in 
their journey. Of more interest to the Christian scholar is the 
cave, now converted into a chapel, where Jerome lived, studied, 
and prayed (386-420 A.D.). It is said by Stanley (436), that 
during the invasion of Ibrahim Pasha the Arabs took possession 
of the convent, and found by the removal of the marbles, etc., 
with which it was encased, that the grotto of the nativity was 
an ancient sepulchre. [f this were so, it is highly improbable 
that Joseph and Mary would have entered it. But the statement 
needs confirmation. (See contra, Farrar.) 

That the Lord was born very soon after their arrival at 
Bethlehem, may be fairly inferred from the fact that “there 
was no room for them in the inn.” 


DecemBer, 749. 5B. C. 


The same night upon which He was born, an Angel of the LuEE ii. 8-20. 
Lord appeared to some shepherds, who were keeping watch over 
their flocks, and announced to them His birth. Leaving their 
flocks, they hastened to Bethlehem to see the child, and finding 
Him, returned, praising God. 

The bearing of the fact that the shepherds were in the field 
watching their flocks, upon the date of the Lord’s birth, has been 
already examined. 

The residence of the shepherds is not mentioned, nor do we 
know the place where they were keeping watch. It appears to 
have been in the vicinity of Bethlehem; and yet some little dis- 


88 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part L 


tance removed. There is now, a mile or more east from the 
convent, a plain in which is a little village called the Village of 
the Shepherds. Not far from this village is pointed out the 
field where, it is said, they were feeding their flocks, and here is 
shown a grotto, called the Grotto of the Shepherds. In this 
field a church was built by the Empress Helena. In its neigh- 
borhood stood formerly a cloister, but now only ruins of a 
church or cloister are to be found. It is mentioned by Bernard, 
A.D. 867.'| “One mile from Bethlehem is the monastery of the 
holy shepherds to whom the angel appeared at our Lord’s nativ- 
ity.” About half a mile north from the church Migdal 
Eder, or “‘ Tower of the flock,” is said to have stood. (See Jtinera 
Hierosolymitana. Sepp. i, 212.) Tradition makes the number 
of shepherds three or four, and gives their names.’ 

Xt is said by Edersheim (i. 186), that it was a firm belief of 
the Jews, that the Messiah should be revealed from Migdal Eder, 
“the tower of the flock” (Gen. xxxv. 21). “This Migdal Eder 
was not the watch-tower of the ordinary flocks which pastured 
on the barren sheep ground beyond Bethlehem, but lay close to 
the town, on the road to Jerusalem. A passage in the Mishnah 
leads to the conclusion that the flocks that pastured there were 
destined for temple sacrifices ; and, accordingly, that the shep- 
herds who watched over them were not ordinary shepherds.” 
He calls attention to the fact that shepherds were under the ban 
of Rabbinism because of their calling, which necessarily kept 
them away from the temple services, and prevented them from 
a strict observance of the law ; and cites the Mishnah to show that 
the keeping of flocks, except those for the temple, was forbidden 
throughout the land of Israel, except in the wilderness. (See 
Wies., Beitrage, 172.) 

But did not those flocks fed in the wilderness return in the 
winter months to the villages? This is said by Lightfoot on 
Rabbinic authority, but Edersheim finds, on like higher author- 
ity, that the wilderness flocks remained in the open all the year 
round ; the other flocks pastured near the towns were destined 
for temple sacrifice. (See Eders., Sketches of Jewish life, 80.} 


1 Early Travels, 29. 2 Hofmann, 107; Maldonatus, 2. 
8 See Thilo, Codex Apoc., i. 385, note. 


Part I.] PRESENTATION OF JESUS. 89 


If this be so, and the flock at Bethlehem was for the temple, its 
shepherds cannot be regarded as ordinary shepherds. From 
their place as keepers of the sacrificial flocks, they must have 
been often at the temple, and in constant intercourse with the 
Levites and priests. The manifestation of the angels to them 
would thus be very early known to all those at the temple. 
Every argument against the Lord’s birth in December, drawn 
from the fact that the shepherds were then in the field, thus loses 
its force. 


JANUARY — FrBruary, 750. 4 B. C. 


Upon the eighth day following His birth, the Lord was cir- LUKE ii. 21. 
cumcised, and the name Jesus given Him. Forty days after the 
birth, Mary presented herself with the child at the Temple in LUKE ii. 22-38. 
accordance with the law, and after the presentation returned 
again to Bethlehem. 


The order of events following Christ’s birth to the time He 
went to reside at Nazareth, is much disputed. The chief point 
of controversy is respecting the time of the visit of the Magi. 
If this can be determined, the other events may be easily 
arranged. 

An early and current tradition placed the coming of the 
Magi on the 6th of January, or on the 13th day after His birth." 
In that case, supposing that the star announced His birth, and 
that they left soon after its appearing, they were only some ten 
days on their journey. This day was early celebrated as the 
teast of the Epiphany, or the manifestation of Christ, and orig- 
inally had reference to the visit of the Magi, and to His baptism; 
and later, to His first miracle. It is now observed both in the 
Greek and Roman Churches with reference to the two former 
events, of which the adoration of the Magi is made most promi- 
nent. This isalso the case in the English and American Episcopal 
Churches. But the tradition did not command universal assent. 
Eusebius and Epiphanius, reasoning from Matt. ii. 16, put the 
coming of the Magi two years after His birth. And others have 
thought the 6th of January selected for convenience, rather than 
as having any direct chronological connection with the event. 


1 See Thilo, Codex Apoc., i. 385, note. 


90 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part L 


The apocryphal gospel of the birth of Mary puts their coming 
on the forty-second day, or after the presentation, but some cop- 
ies on the thirteenth.’ 

If we now ask the grounds upon which, aside from this tra- 
dition, the coming of the wise men is placed so soon after the 
birth, and before the presentation in the Temple, the more impor- 
tant are these: first, that the words tov dé "Iqoov yevvnbévroc, 
“now when Jesus was born’’ (Matt. ii. 1), imply that the one 
event speedily followed the other, the participle being in the 
aorist and not in the perfect ; second, that directly after the pre- 
sentation, Jesus went with His parents to Nazareth (Luke ii. 39), 
and that therefore the presentation must have been preceded 
by their visit; third, that at the coming of the Magi, Herod first 
heard of the birth of Jesus, but if the presentation at the Tem- 
ple had previously taken place, he must have heard of it, as-it 
had been made public by Anna (Luke ii. 38). But none of these 
reasons is decisive. There is nothing, as asserted, in the use of 
yevynbévtoc, “now when Jesus was born,” that proves that they 
came as soon as He was born, or that an interval of two months 
may not have elapsed.? The opinion of many of the fathers 
that they found Him still in the manger, or stall, in spelunca illa 
qua natus est, may be true, if the manger was in a cave in the 
rear of the house. (See Matt. ii. 11.) The statement of Luke, 
that ‘when they had performed all things according to the law 
of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Naza- 
reth,” has often been interpreted as affirming that they went 
directly from the Temple to Nazareth without any return to 
Bethlehem.? But this interpretation is arbitrary. It is appar- 
ent that Luke does not design to give a full history of Christ's 
infancy. He says nothing of the Magi. of the murder of the 
children, of the flight into Egypt. Whatever may have been the 
motive of this omission, which Alford, in common with many 
German critics, ascribes to ignorance, nothing can be inferred 
from it to the impugning of Luke’s accuracy. His statement 
respecting the return to Galilee is general, and does not imply 
any: strict chronological connection. Elsewhere in Luke lke 


1 Hofmann, 126. 2 See Gal. iv. 29, and Meyer, in loco. 
8 So early. Chrysostom: and now. A. Clarke and Meyer. 


EE EE Ea 


Part I.] PRESENTATION OF JESUS. 91 


instances occur, as in iv. 14, where Jesus is said to have ‘re- 
turned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee,” whence it would 
appear that this return followed immediately upon the tempta- 
tion; yet we know that an interval of many months must have 
elapsed. It is the fact that His childhood was passed at Naza- 
reth, which Luke brings prominently forward, not the precise 
time when He went thither, which was unimportant. It is not 
inconsistent with his language that His parents should have re- 
turned to Bethlehem from the Temple, an afternoon walk of two 
hours, and have gone thence to Nazareth by way of Egypt, though 
had we this gospel alone, we could not infer this. Besides, it is 
apparent from Matthew’s narrative (ii. 22-3), that Joseph did 
not design upon his return from Hgypt to go to Galilee, and 
went thither only by express divine direction. Plainly he looked 
upon Bethlehem, not Nazareth, as the proper home of the child 
who should be the heir of David. And finally the fact that 
Anna “spoke of Him to all them that looked for redemption in 
Jerusalem,’ by no means shows that her words came to the ears 
of Herod. The number of those who shared the faith of 
Simeon and Anna was doubtless few, and the birth of Jesus was 
not an event which they would blazon abroad before the Pharisees 
and Herod. 

Those who thus place the visit of the Magi before the purifi- 
cation of Mary and the presentation of Jesus, are by no means 
agreed as to the time of the latter events. If the visit of the 
Magi was on the thirteenth day after His birth, and the murder 
of the children and the flight into Egypt took place immediately 
after, the purification must have been delayed till the return, and 
so in any event after the legal time on the fortieth day.” To 
avoid this, some suppose that, although the suspicions of Herod 
had been aroused by the inquiries of the Magi, yet he took no 
active measures for the destruction of the child, till the rumor of 
what had taken place at the Temple at the time of the presenta- 
tion (Luke ii. 27-38) reaching his ears, stirred him up to give 
immediate orders for the murder of the children.? Others still, 
making the departure to Nazareth to have immediately followed 


1 See Wieseler, 154. 2 Friedlieb, Bucher. 
® Augustine, Sepp, Alford. 


92 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part L 


the purification, are compelled to make Nazareth, not eee 
the starting point of the flight into Egypt.' 

The obvious difficulties connected with this traditional view 
of the coming of the wise men on the thirteenth day after the 
Lord’s birth, have ied most in modern times to put it after the 
purification on the fortieth day. Some, holding that Jesus 
went immediately after that event to Nazareth, suppose that 
after a short sojourn there He returned to Bethlehem, and there 
was found by the wise men.* But most who put the purifica- 
tion upon the fortieth day, make the visit of the Magi to have 
shortly followed, and prior to any departure to Nazareth.* And 
this order seems best to harmonize the scripture narratives. The 
language of Luke ii. 22, compared with verse 21, plainly intimates 
that, as the circumcision took place on the eighth, or legal day, 
so did the presentation on the fortieth. The feast of the Purifi- 
cation is observed by both Eastern and Western churches on the 
2d of February. Till this day, the mother was regarded as un- 
clean and was to abide at home, and it is therefore very 
improbable that the adoration of the Magi, and especially the 
flight into Egypt, should have previously taken place Doubt- 
less, in case of necessity, all the legal requisitions could have 
been set aside, but this necessity is not proved in this case to 
have existed. That the purification was after the return from 
Egypt, is inconsistent with Matthew's statements (i. 22), that 
after Joseph had heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judma, 
he was afraid to go thither. If, then, he dared not even enter 
the king’s territory, how much less would he dare to go to Jeru- 
salem, and enter publicly into the temple. The conjecture of 
some,‘ that Archelaus was then absent at Rome, is wholly with- 
out historic proof. 

That Matthew puts the flight into Egypt in immediate con- 
nection with the departure of the Magi (ii. 13), is plain.® No 
interval could have elapsed after their departure, for it is said, 


1 Maldonatus. 

2 Epiphanius, and now Jarvis, and Patritius. 

8 Robinson, Tischendorf, Wieseler, Lichtenstein, Pressensé. 

4 So Hug. 

5 Alford. Ellicott says: *‘ Probably on the same night that the Magi arrived.” 
From the fact that they “‘ were warned of God in a dream,” it may, however, be inferred 
that the dream of Joseph was the night following. 


ee 


a 


Part I.] COMING OF THE MAGI. 93 


verse 14, that he ‘took the young child and His mother by night, 
and departed into Egypt.” He went so soon as the angel 
appeared to him, apparently the same night. We cannot then 
place the history of the purification after their departure, and 
before the flight into Egypt, as is done by Calvin and many. 
Nor could Herod, after his jealousy had been aroused by the 
inquiries of the Magi after the new-born King of the Jews, have 
waited quietly several weeks, till the events of the purification 
awakened his attention anew. He, doubtless, acted here with 
that decision that characterized all his movements, and seeing 
himself mocked by the wise men, took instant measures for the 
destruction of the child. 

The fact that Mary offered the offering of the poor (Luke ii. 
24), may be mentioned as incidentally confirming this view; for 
if she had received previously the gifts of the Magi, particularly 
the gold, we may suppose that she would have used it to provide 
a better offering. 

We thus trace a threefold adoration of Christ: Ist, that of 
the shepherds; 2d, that of Simeon and Anna; 3d, that of the 
Magi; or a twofold adoration of the Jews, and then the adora- 
tion of the heathen. 


Fesruary, 750. 4 8B.C. 


Soon after the presentation, came the wise men from the Marv. ii, 1-12 
East to worship the new-born King of the Jews. This visit 
excited the suspicions of Herod, who made diligent inquiries 
of them, but being warned of God in a dream that they 
should not return to him, they departed to their own country 
another way. 

The time of the appearing of the star which led the Magi to 
seek Jesus has been already considered; and in the preceding 
remarks the reasons have been given why their coming should be 
placed after the purification of the fortieth day. It is not said 
whence the Magi came, except d70 dvatoA@y, “from the east.” 
Some questions respecting their country, the nature of Magism, 
and its relation to astrology, will be briefly considered. 

A distinction has been taken between the singular, dvarod#, and the 


plural, dvarodal; the former meaning ‘‘the east,” the quarter of the 
sun’s rising, the latter, ‘‘the eastern regions.” (See T. G. Lex. sub 


94 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part 1. 


voce.) Upham says (The Wise Men, New York, 1871) that by the 
singular term is meant ‘‘the East.” by the plural, ‘‘ the far East.” 
As Assyria was to the Jews ‘‘the North,” so Babylonia was ‘‘ the East,” 
and Persia beyond Babylonia ‘‘the far East.” The Magi coming from 
the east, dd dvarodGy, Vul. ab orientidus, he thinks to have been 
Persians. This was an early and current opinion. But amore ancient 
and general belief was that they came from Arabia, and this on several 
grounds: it was near to Judza, and its inhabitants were known to 
be, at least in part, descended from Abraham; the gifts brought by 
them were native to that country; the Psalmist (Ixxii. 10) also had 
predicted that the kings of Seba and Sheba should offer gifts.‘ Some 
have thought of Babylonia as the country of the Magi, of the 
northern parts of Mesopotamia, and of Parthia. The suggestion 
that they were Jews had no probability; their question, ‘‘ Where 
is the king of the Jews?” would be put only by one not a Jew. 

The question from whence they came, is not answered by their 
name, Magi, since Magism seems to have been widely spread. It is 
in dispute where was the home of the Magian religion. Herodotus 
(i. 40) speaks of the Magi as a Median tribe; but they existed asa 
priestly order long before. It is said by Rawlinson? that this form of 
religion was developed, under circumstances unknown to us, among 
the earlier inhabitants of Cappadocia, Armenia, and the Zagros 
mountain range, and was essentially worship of the elements. 
When the followers of Zoroaster, spreading southwestward from 
their original seat in Central Asia, came into contact with Magism, 
there was a partial fusion of religious beliefs and rites. This seems 
first to have taken place in Media, and the Magi became the priest- 
class of the Median nation, and were later accepted as such by the 
Persians. To the same effect are the statements of Rogazin. (The 
Story of Media, Babylonia, and Persia, New York, 1888.) The Magi 
were originally the native priesthood of that mountain region sub- 
sequently occupied by the Medes, and known as Western Eran. 
After the Aryans came, there was a fusion of the two religions, fol- 
lowed by a fusion of the two priesthoods; and the Magi became the 
national priestly class of Media. They appear as a powerful and sepa- 
rate body, possessing large territories, with cities of their own. 
They continued to be the sacerdotal order in Persia to its fall, and also 
under the Parthian rule; and, it is said, continue to be the priestly 
class even to this day. 

By some, however, Babylonia is regarded as the home of Magism, 
because of its essential likeness to Babylonian Chaldaism. It is said 


1 Patritius, B., 111, 315; Mill, 308, note. 
2The Religions of the Ancient World, New York, 1883, p. 97. 





Part L-] COMING OF THE MAGI. 95 


by Rawlinson! that a distinction was taken between the terms, Baby- 
lonian and Chaldean; the former being the ethnic appellation of the 
inhabitants at large, the latter of a small but learned section. (See 
in Daniel ii. 2. Some find five classes of Babylonian Magi mentioned 
by this prophet.) From Babylonia Chaldaism spread to the Assyrians, 
and thence to the Medians, and later to the Persians. The question 
is not important for us.? 

If Chaldaism and Magism were in substance the same, this readily 
accounts for its wide diffusion. 

The name of Magi was at first one of honor, but lost in later times 
its better meaning, and became among the Greeks and Romans the 
general designation of all who made pretensions to supernatural 
knowledge— the interpreters of dreams, and of astronomical pheno- 
mena, false prophets, sorcerers, conjurers, and of all dealers in the 
black arts. This process of deterioration can readily be understood. 
(In this lower sense it is used in the Acts xiii. 6, 8. Elymas— the 
magus, 6 payos, ‘‘the sorcerer.” The Vulgate retains magus.) Some 
of the fathers, and later Lightfoot, say that the term is used here, 
as elsewhere, by Matthew in its bad sense. (Trench, Star, 8.) 
But there is general agreement that the term in Matthew, if trans- 
lated at all, is well translated by ‘‘ wise men.” Doubtless, they 
were astrologers; but astrology is not without some elements of 
truth, for amongst other purposes served by ‘‘the lights in the 
firmament” is that of ‘‘signs.” (Genesis i. 14.) 

Their knowledge of astrology was the means used by God to 
teach them of the birth of his Son. The star was to them what 
Augustin calls it, magnifica lingua coeli, speaking to them by its ap- 
pearance of a new divine act in which all the world, Gentiles, no 
less than Jews, had the deepest interest.® 

That the star seen by the Magi was recognized by them as the star 
of the king of the Jews — ‘‘ His star’ — shows that they must have 
had some previous knowledge of Him. This knowledge they may 
have obtained from traditions of the early prophecy of Balaam (Num. 
xxiv. 17) of ‘‘a star out of Jacob,” pointing to a king hereafter to 
arise; or from the prophecies of Daniel; or from the known 
Messianic expectations of the Jews in their captivity; or from personal 
intercourse with the Jews then dwelling in the East, of whom there 
were many and widely scattered; or, finally, from immediate divine 
revelation. Of the prophecies of Daniel, from the peculiar relation in 


1 Egypt and Babylon, N. York, 1885, p. 43. 
2 Jer. xxxix.3-13; Riehm, sub voce: Herzog, 2 auf.s. v. 
®¥or a full discussion of the significance of stellar signs, see Sepp, i. 147, ete. 


96 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [PartI. 


which he stood to the wise men of Babylon, and from his long resi- 
dence there, extending over the reign of four kings, and his promi- 
nent official position, they could scarcely have been ignorant. 

That a general expectation pervaded the East at this time that a 
king would arise in Juda to rule the world, seems well anthenticated.* 
It is, however, asserted by Gieseler that the Roman historians copied 
Josephus; and Edersheim (i. 203) says: ‘‘There is no_historical evi- 
dence that there was among the nations any wide-spread expect- 
ancy of the Messiah in Palestine.” But if such an expectation existed, 
all agree that it must originally have been derived from the Jews. 
Aside, then, from any immediate supernatural revelation, we may in- 
fer that the Magi were in a position to interpret the appearing of the 
star as connected with the fulfilment of Jewish prophecy respecting 
the Messiah, and thus to speak of it as ‘‘ His star.” If the statement 
often made that the Gentile astrologers divided the zodiac into parts, 
each of which denoted a particular country, and that the sign Pisces 
denoted Judea, the conjunction of planets in this sign would at once 
have marked out this country as the place of present interest. But 
we have seen no satisfactory proof that at the time of the Lord’s 
birth Judea was astrologically designated by this sign. The state- 
ment of Abarbanel (1597 A.D.) as to a much later belief is hardly 
sufficient, but it is accepted by many.’ 

Some minor points remain yet to be noticed. Did this star, seen 
by the Magi ‘‘in the east,” or, as rendered by many, ‘‘at its rising ” 
(so Meyer, in loco), go before them on their way to Jerusalem to serve 
as a guide? If so, was it visible by day, or did they travel only by 
night? Was it visible to all, or to them only? Some understand 
“the time of the appearing star” — 70d dawopévou dorépos —to show 
a constant appearance (Wieseler, Beitrige, 149). But clearly Herod 
asked the time of its first appearing. 


It is generally assumed that the star was seen by the Magi 
all the way till they reached Jerusalem, and then disappeared for 
a time, and again reappeared to guide them to Bethlehem. This 
is not said in the narrative. Its first appearing was to tell them 
of the Messiah’s birth; His relations to the Jews, we may believe, 
they already knew; the way to Judea was so well known to — 
them, that they needed not a celestial guide. (See Speaker's 


1 Suetonius Ves., c. 4, vetus et constans opinio; Tacitus, Hist., v.13; Josephus, War. vi. 
5, 4. 
2So Sepp, i. 158; Wieseler, Beitriige, 154. Abarbanel says that Jesus was born under 
Mars, and therefore His blood was upon His own head. 





Part I.] COMING OF THE MAGI. 97 


Com.) It was its reappearance at Jerusalem after so long a dis- 
appearance, that filled them with great joy. 

It is often said that the Magi addressed their enquiry, ‘“‘ Where 
is He that is born King of the Jews?”’ to Herod, as the official 
head of the nation. (So Edersheim.) This may be so, but it is 
not said by the Evangelist; but if they did not, their arrival and 
its purpose would soon have come to his knowledge. 

Was the gathering of the chief priests and scribes of the 
people (verse 4), a meeting of the Sanhedrin? This is often 
said on the ground of Matthew’s words, that Herod ‘ gath- 
ered all the chief priests and scribes of the people.” But it is 
denied by others on the ground that “the elders” are not men- 
tioned, who were a constituent part of the Sanhedrin. Meyer 
says that he gathered “all the theologians because it was a theo- 
logical question.” The language of Matthew does not affirm an 
official meeting, but only that Herod gathered all those of whom 
he might best obtain an answer to his question ; and these, doubt- 
less, were those most famed for their knowledge of the Script- 
ures, and probably, most or all of them were members of the 
Sanhedrin. Edersheim says: ‘all the high priests, past and 
present, and all the learned Rabbis.” 

Where did the Magi find the infant King? It has been 
taken for granted that they found Him at Bethlehem, and this 
has always been the traditional belief. But it has been ques- 
tioned by some, cited by Patritius, who present the view that 
Joseph and Mary went immediately after the presentation to 
their former home in Nazareth; and that the Magi found them 
there. This seems in accordance with Luke’s statement (ii. 39): 
«When they had performed all things according to the law of 
the Lord, they returned into Galilee to their own city Nazareth.” 
And there is in this nothing intrinsically improbable. The 
question of the Magi was, ‘‘ Where is He?” and although they 
were sent by Herod to Bethlehem as the prophetic birthplace of 
the Messiah, the star may have directed them to Nazareth, and 
here they may have paid Him their adoration, His parents being 
in their own house. If so, it was from Nazareth that Joseph 
and Mary went down to Egypt; and the Magi did not return to 
Jerusalem, but went to their own country another way, perhaps 
by way of Damascus. 

5 


98 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part L. 


But the question naturally arises, Why should Herod slay the 
children in Bethlehem, if the Magi did not go there? Why not 
follow them to Nazareth, and there slay the Child they wor- 
shipped? A strong, perhaps decisive, objection to this view is, 
that no tradition of the visit of the Magi to Nazareth has been 
preserved; tradition is constant that they went to Bethlehem. 

Many traditions have been current in the Church respecting 
these Magi.’ They were said to be three in number, either 
from their gifts, or because regarded as representatives of the 
three divisions — Hamites, Shemites, and Japhetites. They 
were kings, one of Arabia, one of Godolia or Saba, and one of 
Tharsis ; their names, Melchior, Balthasar, Caspar; they were 
baptized by St. Thomas, their bones were gathered by St. 
Helena, and buried at St. Sophia in Constantinople, and were 
finally removed to Cologne, where they now lie.* The belief 
that they were kings might easily arise from the fact already 
spoken of that they, asa class, had large territorial possessions. 
Mill (310) speaks of them ‘as not improbably toparchs or pro- 
vincial governors, as well as priests.” They are often called 
priest-kings. 

If the Magi came from beyond the Euphrates, they probably 
came by way of Damascus, and thenceto Jerusalem. In return- 
ing, they may have gone south of the Dead Sea to Petra, and 
thence have crossed the Euphrates. 


Fresruary — May, 750. 4 B. C. 


Immediately after their departure, Joseph, warned by God Mart. ii. 13-15. 
in a dream, takes Jesus and Mary and goes down into Egypt. 
Herod, as soon as he finds himself mocked by the wise men, MArt. ii. 16-18. 
gives orders that all the children in Bethlehem of two years 
and under be slain. Joseph, with Jesus and Mary, remains in MATT, ii. 19-23. 
Egypt till he hears, through an angelic messenger, of Herod’s 
death. He designs to return to Judea, but is directed by God LuKz ii. 39-40. 
to go to Nazareth, where the Lord remains during His child- 
hood and youth. 


The time of the sojourn in Egypt was not probably of long 
duration, although extended by some of the early writers to 


1 Hofmann, 120. 

2 Hildesheim, die Legende von den heiligen drei Kénigen; Hertzog Encyc., ii. 503. 
For a full discussion of all these traditions, see Spanheim, Dubia Evangelica, ii. 271, 
and DPatritine +i 212 7 












Part I.] JESUS IN EGYPT. 99 


several years. In the Gospel of the Infancy it is stated at three 
years ; in the History of Joseph, at one year; in Tatian’s Har- 
mony, at seven years; by Hpiphanius, at two years. Athanasius 
makes Jesus four years old when He came from Egypt; Baro- 
nius, eight years. In modern times, those who put the Lord’s 
birth one or more years before Herod’s death, prolong corre- 
spondingly the sojourn in Hgypt, some one, some two, some 
three years.’ But if His birth be placed late in 749, some months 
before Herod’s death in April, 750, as we place it, His return 
from Egypt must have been in the early summer of 750. Lard- 
ner (i. 358), after Kepler, has attempted to show from the 
expression of the angel (Matt. 11. 20), «they are dead that sought 
the young child’s life,” that Antipater, Herod’s son, was included 
with Herod; and as he had been at enmity with his father for 
nearly a year, that the attempt upon His life and the murder of 
the Innocents must have been before this enmity, and at least 
a year before Herod’s death. But this is doing violence to the 
expression.” 

Joseph was to remain in Egypt till God should send him 
word, and this word was sent apparently so soon as Herod died. 
Considering how numerous were the Jews in Egypt, and the 
constant communication between the two countries, the news of 
Herod’s death must soon have reached him in the ordinary way; 
but it was first made known to him by the angel, and no long 
interval, therefore, could have elapsed. That he made no delay 
but hastened his return, is implied in the fact that he did not 
know that Archelaus was Herod’s successor till he came to the 
land of Israel. We infer, then, that the return was in the sum- 
mer of 750, after a sojourn of three or four months.? 

Tradition marks out the route which Joseph took into Egypt 
to have been by way of Hebron, Gaza, and the desert; which, 
as the most direct way, is very likely the true one. At Hebron 


1 Patritius, Sepp, Jarvis, Geikie. 

2 See Trench, Star, 107; Meyer in loco. 

8 According to Greswell, seven months; Lichtenstein, four to five weeks; Wiese- 
ler, and Ellicott, two to three weeks. Patritius, iii. 408, argues that the return was 
during the little interval when Archelaus ruled as king, or from the death of his father to 
his departure to Rome, whither he went to obtain the confirmation of Herod’s will. This 
would make it to have been early in April, 750. It may, however, be doubted whether 
the expression of Matthew, ii. 22, that ‘‘ Archelaus did reign,” is not pressed too far. 


100 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part L 


is still pointed out upon a hill the spot where the family rested at 
night, and a similar one at Gaza. Probably near a fortnight was 
occupied in the journey. The traditional place of their sojourn 
in Egypt is the village Metariyeh, not far from the city of Heli- 
opolis on the way toward Cairo. An old sycamore is still shown 
as that under which they rested in their journey, or, according 
to present Coptic traditions, the successor of that, and near by 
is a fountain in which the child was bathed.’ It is probable 
that many Jews dwelt at this time in the neighborhood of Heli- 
opolis, which may explain the choice of a village in its vicinity as 
their place of refuge. Another tradition, however, makes them 
to have left Metariyeh, and to have dwelt at Memphis. The 
temple built by Onias about 150 B.C. at Leontopolis still con- 
tinued to be a much-frequented place of worship to the Egyp- 
tian Jews, of whom Lightfoot says, “there was an infinite num- 
ber at this time.” 

From the nearness of Bethlehem to Jerusalem, Herod 
doubtless learned very early after the departure of the Magi, 
that they had deceived him, and that through them he could 
not discover the new-born child. But as he had already dili- 
gently inquired of them what time the star appeared, he thought 
to accomplish his purpose by ordering that all the male children 
from two years old and under, in Bethlehem and its environs, 
should be put to death. The truth of the narrative has been 
often questioned, and on various grounds. The only important 
objection, however, is that springing from the silence of Jose- 
phus, who, it is said, must have mentioned an event so peculiar 
and cruel.? The common answer to this, that among the many 
insane and fiendish acts of cruelty that marked the last days of 
Herod, this might be easily overlooked, is amply sufficient.* 
The expression, “‘from two years old and under,” is ambiguous. 
According to Campbell, “only those beginning the second year 
are included.” Greswell also limits it to the age of thirteen 
months. If it be thus confined, the number of the children 
murdered is much diminished. But under any circumstances, 
it could not have been large. Sepp, supposing the whole num: 


1 Chester, Qt. St., July 1880. Kitto, Life of Christ, 130. 
2 Meyer, in loco. 3 Winer, i. 483. 





Part I.] MURDER OF THE INNOCENTS. 101 


ber of inhabitants of Bethlehem and its coasts.to be 5,000, would 
make the male children of this age about ninety; but this is a 
large estimate. Townsend, making the inhabitants to be 2,000, 
makes 50 children to have been slain. Some would reduce the 
number to ten or fifteen.’ Voltaire, after an old Greek tradi- 
tion, would make it 14,000. In peaceful times, such an act as 
this, even if executed, as this probably was, in secrecy, would 
have excited general indignation when it became known; but 
now the Jewish people had so long “supped with horrors,” and 
were so engrossed in the many perils that threatened their 
national existence, that this passed by comparatively unnoticed. 
Such a deed — from aman, of whom Josephus says that “he 
was brutish and a stranger to all humanity,” who had murdered 
his wife and his own children, and who wished, in his dying 
rage, to destroy all the chief men of his kingdom, that there 
might be a general mourning at his funeral — could have awak- 
ened no surprise. It was wholly in keeping with his reckless 
and savage character, but one, and by no means the greatest, 
of his crimes. It is therefore possible that it may never have 
come to the knowledge of the Jewish historian, writing so 
many years after the event. 

If, however, Josephus was aware of this atrocity, it by no 
means follows that he would have mentioned it. With the rea- 
sons for his silence we are not particularly concerned. It may 
be, as some say,” that he purposely avoided everything that 
drew attention to the Messianic hopes of his people; or, as 
others,* that ‘‘he could not mention it without giving the 
Christian cause a great advantage.” But whatever his motives, 
his silence cannot invalidate the statement of Matthew, except 
with those who will not credit an Evangelist unless corrobo- 
rated by some Jewish or heathen author. 

There are some’ who think that the sedition of Judas and 
Matthias * occurred at this very time, and was connected with 
the visit of the Magi. The inquiries of these strangers for the 
King of the Jews aroused into immediate activity the fiery 
Zealots, and a report of the king’s death finding credence, they 


1 Winer, i. 483; Morrison; Farrar, Edersheim, say twenty at most. 
2 Lichtenstein, 97. 3 Lardner, i. 351. 
4 Lardner, i. 348; Minter. 5 Josephus, Antiq., xvi. 6. 3 and 4, 


102 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part L 


attacked at noon-day the golden eagle he had placed over the 
temple gate. About forty of them being arrested, were burned 
with fire. Exasperated at this bold sedition, and aware of the 
cause, the king gave orders for the slaughter of the children at 
Bethlehem. Of the two acts of this tragedy, Matthew relates 
only that with which he was concerned, that which took place 
at Bethlehem; and Josephus, that which concerned the general 
history of affairs. The silence of the one is no disproof of the 
other. 

The objection of Hase and Meyer, that this murder of the 
children was both superfluous and unwise, may be very true, 
but does not affect the historic truth of the event. The silence 
of heathen historians respecting it is wholly unimportant. Judwa 
did not hold so high a place in their estimation that they should 
trouble themselves about its internal history, so little intelligible 
to a stranger. Herod’s name is occasionally mentioned by them 
in connection with Roman matters, and there is in one a brief 
allusion to the trial and death of his sons, but nothing more. 
The well-known jest of Augustus, preserved by Macrobius,’ 
might be cited if it could be shown that he had borrowed noth- 
ing from Christian sources. He says: ‘When Augustus had 
heard that among the children under two years old, intra bima- 
tum, which Herod had commanded to be slain in Syria, his own 
son had been killed, he said ‘it is better to be Herod’s swine than 
his son.’” The expression, “two years old,” points too directly 
to Matthew to allow us to suppose that it had an independent 
origin, although the words of Augustus may be literally given. 
Most agree that it is of no historical value.” 

It would be strange, indeed, that while oriental history is 
full of such deeds of cruelty which are believed upon the 
authority of a single writer, the statement of the Evangelist 
should be disbelieved, though confirmed by all that we know of 
the character of the chief actor, and of the history of the times. 
A like rule applied to general history would leave not a few of 
its pages empty. 

When directed to go into Egypt, Joseph was not told to 


1 Sat., ii. 2. 
2 So Lardner, Meyer, Trench, Alford. See, however, Mill, 294; Ellicott, 78, note 2. 


Part I.] RETURN FROM EGYPT. 103 


what place he should return (Matt. ii. 13), nor afterward, when 
directed to return, was the place designated (verse 20). It is 
plain, however, that he did not design to return to Nazareth. 
He evidently regarded Bethlehem, the city of David, the proper 
place in which to rear the son of David. He naturally supposed 
that He who was of the tribe of Judah, should dwell in the land 
of Judah,the most religious, most sacred part of Palestine; and, 
as the promised Messiah, should be brought as near as possible 
to the theocratic centre, where He might have frequent inter- 
course with. the priests and rabbins, and be educated under the 
very shadow of the temple. Only through a special command of 
God, was he led to return with Jesus to Galilee; and that he 
made his abode in the upland city of Nazareth, can only be ex- 
plained by the fact, of which Matthew is wholly silent, that this 
had been his earlier residence as related by Luke. 

How diverse the opinions of harmonists have been, in regard 
to the order of events of the Lord’s infancy, will appear by a 
comparison of their several arrangements. These may be thus 
classified: I. That put the coming of the Magi before the forti- 
eth day, the legal time of the Purification. 

Sepp. Coming of the Magi on thirteenth day. Purification 
on fortieth day. Flight into Egypt, and sojourn there two years. 
Return to Galilee. 

Chemnitz. Coming of the Magi just before the Purification. 
Purification on fortieth day. Flight into Egypt, and sojourn 
there four years. Return into Galilee. 

II. That put the coming of the Magi after the Purification. 
Here we distinguish two classes. (a) That put the Purification 
at the legal time on the fortieth day. 

Epiphanius. Purification on fortieth day. Departure to Naz- 
areth, and sojourn theretwo years. Return to Bethlehem. Com- 
ing of Magi. Flight into Egypt, and sojourn there three years. 
Return to Galilee. 

Inghtfoot. Purification on fortieth day. Return to Bethlehem, 
and sojourn there till two years of age. Comingof Magi. Flight 
into Egypt, and sojourn there three or four months. Return to 
Galilee. 

Wieseler. Purification on fortieth day. Coming of Magi. 


iF a 
od 


104 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. art 1 


Flight into Egypt, and sojourn there two or three weeks 
Return to Galilee. 

(b) That put the Purification after the legai time, and after 
the return from Egypt. 

Friedlieb. Coming of Magi on the thirteenth. Flight into 
Egypt, and sojourn there three or four months. Return to Judwa. 
Purification. Departure to Nazareth. 

Caspart. Coming of Magi. Flight into Egypt, and sojourn 
there three or four weeks. Return to Bethlehem. Purification. 
Departure to Nazareth. 

That the coming of the Magi was placed on the 6th of Janu- 
ary, the thirteenth from His birth, the same day that was cele- 
brated as that of His baptism, has been already spoken of in 
speaking of the feast of the Epiphany. 

That the Magi did not come till after the Purification, rests 
on several grounds: Ist, that Mary gave the offering of the 
poor, a thing not likely after she had received the gifts of the 
Magi; 2d, that Herod would not wait after their departure some 
weeks before slaying the children at Bethlehem; 3d, that 
Matthew and Luke are to be reconciled. That the Purifica- 
tion was not delayed appears from Luke ii. 22. On these and 
other grounds, almost all harmonists put the coming of the Magi 
after the Purification. Those who put the birth of the Lord in 
747 or 748, and the death of Herod in 750, must make the 
sojourn in Egypt proportionately long. 

ReEsIpENCE IN Nazaretu. — In the city of Nazareth the Lord 
spent the larger part of his earthly life; it is called “ His own 
country,” tatpis (Matt. xiii. 54, and elsewhere), and He is con- 
tantly called Jesus of Nazareth; it therefore deserves our special 
notice. His residence here being brought by Matthew into direct 
connection with the Old Testament prophecy, the etymology of the 
name has been much discussed.1 By many it is derived from 
netser, the Hebrew for sprout or twig, either because of so many 
thickets upon the adjoining hills, or because the village itself was 
small and feeble like a tender twig.” So Jesus is called (Isaiah 
xi.1)a Branch. Others derive it from notser, that which guards 


1 See Meyer, in loco 2 Winer, ii. 142; Hengst. Christology, ii. 109; T. G. Lex 


Es 


Part I] NAZARETH. 105 


or keeps; hence, Nazareth, the protecting city.’ Others still 
derive it from nezer, to separate.” Jerome interpreted it as mean: 
ing a flower: Ibimus ad Nazareth, et juxta interpretationem nominis 
ejus, florem videbimus Calileae ; referring, as would appear from 
his language elsewhere, to Jesus as the Branch or Flower from the 
root of Jesse. It is noticeable that travellers speak of the great 
quantity of flowers now seen there.* The present name in 
Arabic is En Nasirah. 5 
Nazareth lies in a small valley of Lower Galilee, a little 
north of the great plain of Esdraelon, from which it is reached 
by very rocky and precipitous paths. Its elevation above the 
“~~ plain is estimated to be from 300 to 350 feet. Bonar (398) 
speaks of the main road ‘‘as littie better than a succession of 
rocky slopes or ledges, rugged with holes and stones. Yet this 
was the old road to Nazareth. There could be no other from 
this side, so that one travelling from the south must have taken 
it.” The valley runs northeast and southwest, and is about a 
mile long and a quarter of a mile broad. Around it rise many 
small hills of no great height, the highest being on the west or 
southwest. They are of limestone, and give to the scenery a 
grayish tint, and are covered thickly with shrubs and trees. 
“The white rocks all around Nazareth give it a peculiar aspect. 
It appears dry and tame, and this effect is increased by the trees 
being powdered over with dust during the summer season. The 
heat was very great, and the gleam from the rocks painful to the 
eye.’4 “The upper ridges of the hills were, as is usual in this 
worn-out land, gray and bare, but the lower slopes and dells and 
hollows were green, sprinkled not scantily with the olive, the fig, 
the prickly pear, and the karub ; while in the gardens the usual 
oriental fruit trees showed themselves,” ® 
The village itself lies on the western side of the valley upon 
the side of the hill. The houses are, in general, of stone, and 


1See Riggenbach, Stud. u. Krit., 1855; Edersheim, i. 145, “‘ Watch”’ or ‘“‘ watchers” ; 
Merrill (Galilee, 29), ‘‘The guarded or watched,” and connects it with the high hill 
above it and watching over it. 

2 Lightfoot and Bengel, in loco. © 

’ Stanley, 359. The subject is discussed by Mill, 335. Keimcallsit Nazara. So inthe 
Greek text, Matt. iv. 13, Luke iv. 16, W. and H., against Keim. See Riehm, sub voce. 

4 Mission of Inquiry, 306. 6 Bonar. 


5* 


106 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part L 


more substantially built than most of the towns of the region, 
and from their whiteness it has been called “the white city ”;* the 
streets or lanes are, however, narrow and filthy. Porter 
(ii. 359) speaks of it as ‘built on the side of the highest hill; 
on the north the side of the hill is steep, and where it joins 
the plain is seamed by three or four ravines; and on the 
lower declivities of the ridges between them stands the 
village of Nazareth. This, therefore, is ‘the hill whereon the 
city was built’ (Luke iv. 29). The houses in some places seem 
to cling to the sides of the precipices, in others they nestle in 
glens, and in others again they stand boldly out overlooking the 
valley.” The present number of inhabitants is variously esti- 
mated,” and is said to be increasing. 


Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, nor by Josephus, 
from which we may conclude that it was a place of no importance. 
But this conclusion would not be just, if we receive the state- 
ment of Neubauer (189), resting on a doubtful rabbinical authority, 
that it was a gathering place for the priests who went up from that 
region for the service of the temple. This is accepted by Edersheim 
(i. 147): “ Nazareth was one of the great centers of Jewish temple- 
life. . . . The priests of the course which was to be on duty 
always gathered in certain towns, whence they went up in company to 
Jerusalem.” If this was the case, the frequent presence of these 
priests, and the interest thereby excited in the temple service, must 
have been an important element in the religious character of the 
child Jesus. 

The general belief that Nazareth was a lonely, out-of-the-way 
place, having very little connection with the outer world, and its 
citizens, therefore, ‘uncivilized and rude, is also strongly combated 
by Edersheim, who says that the lower caravan route from Acre to 
Damascus — the via maris — led through Nazareth, and therefore ‘‘ it 
was not a stagnant pool of rustic seclusion. Men of all nations, 
busy with another life than that of Israel, would appear in its streets.” 
Merrill takes the same view, and gives the distances to certain other 


1 Although not named in the Talmud, Schwartz (178) thinks it was known under 
another name: ‘I have ascertained that the town of Nazareth was called Laban — The 
White Town —from the color of the soil, and stones, and houses.” This is accepted by 
Hamburger, ii. 854. Baedeker speaks of ‘its dazzling white walls,” i. e., of the houses. 

2The Turkish officials assert that it amounts to 10,000, while others fix the number at 
5,000 to 6,000; more than half are Christians. Baed., 359. The population in our Lord’s day 
is variously estimated from 5,000 to 15,000; Merrill, more; but there seems to be no valid 
data for an estimate so large. 


a * 


Part I.] NAZARETH. 107 


cities, thus showing that its inhabitants had that stimulus which 
comes from easy and frequent intercourse with other and larger 
communities. 

Although so intimately connected with the life of Jesus, and there- 
fore so prominent in the Gospels, it is not mentioned by any Christian 
writer prior to Eusebius in the fourth century, nor does it seem to 
have been visited by pilgrims till the sixth.’ After this time it be- 
came one of the most famous among the holy places. In the seventh 
century two churches are mentioned, one on the site of Joseph’s 
house, and the other on the site of the house where Gabriel appeared 
to Mary. During the Crusades it was made the seat of a bishopric. 
It was destroyed about A. D. 1200 by the Saracens, and for 300 or 
400 years seems to have been inhabited chiefly by Mohammedans, and 
very little visited by pilgrims.*. One of the churches was rebuilt in 
1620 by the Franciscans, who added to it a cloister. Nazareth has 
been for many years the seat of a Greek titular bishop. 


™ =~ All travellers agree in praising the extent and beauty of the pros- 


pect from the top of the hill northwest of Nazareth, 1,788 feet above 
the sea. It is surmounted by the tomb of a Mohammedan saint, and 
is about 400 or 500 feet above the valley.* To the north is seen the 
wide plain of el Buttauf, running from east to west, having Cana of 
Galilee upon its northern, and Sepphoris upon its southern border, 
and beyond it rise in parallel ridges the hills, one behind another, to 
the heights of Safed. To the northeast Hermon is seen, and east- 
ward the ranges of Bashan beyond the Sea of Galilee, while Tabor 
lies between it and the sea. To the southeast stretch Little Hermon 
and Gilboa in parallel lines. On the south lies the great plain of 
Esdraelon, bounded southward by the hills of Samaria and the long 
line of Carmel. Over the broken ridges that join Carmel to Samaria, 
is seen the Mediterranean far to the southwest, and the eye following 
the summits westward reaches the high promontory where Carmel 
ends upon the shore; from this point is seen the unbroken expanse of 
water many miles to the north. This view is said by Porter (ii. 263) 
to be the richest, and perhaps also the most extensive, which one gets 
in all Palestine, and to surpass that from Tabor.® 


That Nazareth, from some cause, had, at the time when the 
Lord resided in it, an evil name, appears plainly from John i 


1 Robinson, ii. 341. 2 Arculf, Early Travels, 9. 

8 Karly Travels, 46 and 298. 

4So Robinson, ii. 333, note. Schubert makes it 700 or 800 feet above Nazareth. 
5See Robinson, ii. 336; Stanley, 357. 


’ 


108 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part I. 


46. The objection of Nathanael was not merely that it was in 
Galilee, and that the Messiah could not come out of Galilee 
(John vii. 41), but he refers specially to Nazareth. Nor was it 
that it was a little village, for so was Bethlehem; and whenever 
designated in the Gospels, it is always called a city. The obvious 
import is, that Nazareth was in ill-repute throughout the province, 
and of this Nathanael, who was from Cana, but a little way 


.. distant, was well aware. This is confirmed by the revengeful 


and cruel treatment of the Lord when he first preached to the 
inhabitants (Luke iv. 28, 29). 


Aprit 8, 761. A.D. 8 


From Nazareth, at the age of twelve, the Lord goes up for LuKs ii. 41-52. 
the first time to Jerusalem to keep the Passover. After the 
departure of His parents He remained behind to converse with 
the doctors, and was found in the temple three days after 
by them. Returning to Nazareth, He dwelt there in retire- 
ment till the time came that He should enter upon His public 
work. 

_ Supposing the Lord to have been born in 749, the year when 
He went up with His parents to the Passover was 761, and the 
feast began on the 8th of April. His presence at the Passover, 
at the age of twelve, was in accordance with Jewish custom. 
At that age, the Jewish boys began to be instructed in the law, 
to be subject to the fasts, and to attend regularly the feasts, and 
were called the sons of the Law.? This, however, is called in 
question by Greswell (i. 396), who asserts that boys did not 
become subject to ordinances till they had reached the age of 
fourteen years, and that the purpose for which Jesus was now 
taken up was not to celebrate the Passover, but to be “made a 
disciple of the Law, and to undergo a ceremony, something like 
to our confirmation.” He sees in this the explanation of the 
Lord’s presence in the midst of the doctors.* It is not probable 
that up to this time Jesus had accompanied His parents to Jeru- 
salem to any of the festivals. Of all that passed between Him 


1See Kitto, Life of Christ, 27. Merrill ‘‘ denies that there is any disparagement in 
the words. So also Godet, in loco, who says; ‘‘ There is nothing in history to prove that 
it was a place of worse fame or less esteemed than any other village of Galilee.” 

2 Meyer in loco; Sepp, ii. 172. 

3 But see Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish life, 120. 


Non) 


Part I.] JESUS WITH THE DOCTORS. 10€ 


and the rabbis, a full account may be found in. the Apocryphal 
Gospel of the Infancy.* It needs no proof that on this occasion 
He was not taking upon Himself the part of a teacher, nor ask- 
ing questions for disputation, but was seeking to learn the truth 
from those who were appointed of God to be the teachers of the 
Law. Where He was sitting with the doctors is uncertain. 
Lightfoot (in loco) says: ‘‘There were three courts of judicature 
in the temple, and also a synagogue,” but does not say where He 
was found. “There is nothing absurd in it if we should suppose 
Christ gotten into the very Sanhedrin itself.” Edersheim 
denies that there was such a temple-synagogue, and affirms that, 
during the feasts, the members of the Sanhedrin sat on the 
Chel or terrace, to hear and answer questions, and that there 
Jesus found them. He infers that this was during the feast, 
and not after it (ii. App. x.). 

The three days that elapsed before His parents found Jesus, 
may be thus computed: the first, that of their departure from 
Jerusalem; second, the day of their return; third, the day when 
He was found; or, if we exclude the day of departure — first, 
the day of their return; second, the day of search in Jerusalem; 
third, the day when He was found. Some, with much less 
probability, count three days from the day of their return. That 
He might very easily be separated from them without any cul- 
pable carelessness on their part, appears from the great multi- 
tudes that were present and the confusion that would necessa- 
rily prevail at such atime. Tradition makes Beer or El Bireh 
to have been the place where His parents spent the first night, 
and where they missed their son. “The place where Christ 
was first missed by His parents is commonly shown at this day 
to travellers, by the name of Beer, but ten miles from the city.”? 
Edersheim says, Sichem, if the direct road north through Sama- 
ria was taken. As is well known, the first day’s journey of a 
company of eastern travellers is always short. ‘On that day it 
is not customary to go more than six or eight miles, and the 
tents are pitched for the first night’s encampment almost within 
sight of the place from which the journey commences.”* That, 


1See Hofmann, 259. 2 Lightfoot. 
8 Hackett, Scrip. Ill., 12. 


110 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part 4. 


leaving Jerusalem in the afternoon with the crowd of Galilwan 
pilgrims, Mary and Joseph should have lost sight of Jesus for 
three or four hours, and yet not have felt any alarm, supposing 
Him to have been somewhere in the company, presents no 
difficulty.’ 

The Lord now disappears from our sight and does not reap- 
pear for many years. We are simply told He went with His 
parents to Nazareth, and was.subject unto them. 

How the eighteen years of His life passed at Nazareth 
were spent, we have no means of determining. The Evangelists 
have maintained upon this point entire silence. It is most prob- 
able that He was taught His father Joseph’s trade, according to 
the settled custom of the Jews to bring up their sons to some 
trade or art.” This is very plainly taught in the question of the 
inhabitants of Nazareth, ‘Is not this the carpenter ?” which, as 
Alford remarks, “signifies that the Lord had actually worked at 
the trade of His reputed father.” Justin Martyr (100-150 A, 
D.) says that Christ being regarded as a worker in wood, ‘did 
make, while among men, ploughs and yokes, thus setting before 
them symbols of righteousness, and teaching an active life.” * 
That this was His occupation seems to have been generally 
believed by the early fathers. Some, in later times, thinking 
bodily labor derogatory to him, made this time of retirement at 
Nazareth to have been spent in contemplation and prayer. The 
traditions that He made a journey to Persia to visit the Magi, 
or to Egypt to visit her sages, need no notice.‘ 

Of the means for the mental and spiritual education of the 
child Jesus, we have only a general knowledge. It is doubtless 
true, as said by Edersheim (i. 230), that ‘from the first days of 
its existence a religious atmosphere surrounded the child of Jew- 
ish parents.” Besides the influences of the home and the teach- 
ing of the father and mother, there were the synagogue, the 
school, and the feasts. For the first years the Bible was the 
text-book, and later the traditional law. It is a point in ques- 
tion whether Joseph possessed a copy of the old Testament in whole 


1 As to the more distinguished rabbis whom the Lord may have met at this time 
eee Sepp, ii. 178. - 

2See Lightfoot on Mark yi. 3. 8See contra Mosheim. Com.. i. 86 

4#See Hofmann, 264. 


Part I.] THE LORD’S BRETHREN. iy 


or in part; or if he did not, did Jesus during his youth have regu- 
lar access to one? This is a question that cannot be positively 
answered. It is said by some that the cost of a whole copy, or 
even of a part, was so great that a poor man could not possess it. 
But others, as Edersheim, affirm that every devout Jew could 
have at least some part of the Scriptures, and if Joseph had not, 
Jesus could have found a copy in the school for Bible study. 

We may believe that in Him the words of the Psalmist found 
their perfect fulfillment (Ps. i. 2.): “His delight is in the law of 
the Lord; and in His law doth he meditate day and night.” But 
there is no reason to believe that during all these years He ever 
took upon himself the work of a teacher. The time for this had 
not come. He was silent till God by the voice of the Baptist 
called Him forth. (See Mark vi. 2 ff.) 


THE LORD’S BRETHREN. 

It is an interesting inquiry, and one that may properly be con- 
sidered here, Who constituted the household of Joseph and Mary 
at Nazareth? Was Jesus the only child in the family circle; or, if 
there were other children, in what relation did they stand to Him? 
Mention is several times made by the Evangelists of His brothers and 
sisters. Who were they? This question has been in dispute from 
very early times, and many elaborate essays have been written upon 
it; but opinions are as much at variance now as ever. Credner 
(Hinleitung in das N. T., 570) makes an apt quotation from Bacon: 
“* Oitius emerget veritas ex errore quam ex confusione.” Its impartial dis- 
cussion has been hindered by dogmatic considerations connected with 
the perpetual virginity of the Lord’s mother, with Church polity, and 
with the canonicity of non-Apostolic epistles. Passing by these for 
the present, and avoiding, so far as possible, mere conjectures, let us 
attempt to bring the matter in its more important bearings fairly 
before us. 

Let us first sum up what we know from the New Testament of the 
brothers and sisters of the Lord. They are mentioned in Matthew 
xii. 46-50, xiii. 55-56; Mark iii. 31, vi. 3; Luke viii. 19; Johnii. 12, 
vil. 3; Acts i. 14; 1 Cor. ix. 5; and St. Paul speaks of a James the 
Lord’s brother (Galatians i. 19). Of the brothers, there seem to have 
been four, whose names are given by Matthew xiii. 55: James, Joses, 
Simon, and Judas; in the Revised Version, James, Joseph, Simon, 
and Judas (see Mark vi. 3). Both Evangelists mention the sisters, but 
neither the number nor the names are given. From the language of 


112 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part L 


the Nazarenes (Matthew xiii. 56), ‘‘ His sisters, are they not all with 
us ?” there must have been at least two, probably more, and apparently 
married, and resident at Nazareth. (Woolsey, ‘‘at least three”; 
Mill, four.) These brothers and sisters are not mentioned at all til] 
after the Lord began His ministry, and are first mentioned as going 
with His mother and Himself to Capernaum (John ii. 12). It is in 
dispute whether any were believers in His Messianic claims, at least 
till the very end of His ministry (John vii. 3-10). Most say that 
they were made believers through His resurrection, as they immedi- 
ately after appear in company with the Apostles (Acts i. 14). 

In all the references to the Lord’s brethren several things are 
noticeable: first, that they are always called brothers and sisters, 
ddeApol, ddehpdi; not cousins, advéfw, or kinsmen, cuyyevets; second, 
that their relationship is always defined with reference to Him, not 
to Joseph or to Mary; they are always called His brothers and 
sisters, not sons and daughters of Mary; third, that they always 
appear in connection with Mary (except in John yii. 3) as if her 
children, members of her household, and under her direction. 

We may thus classify the several theories respecting them: first, 
that they were His own brothers and sisters, the children of Joseph 
and Mary; second, that they were the children of Joseph by a 
former marriage, and so His step-brothers and sisters; third, that 
they were children of a sister of His mother, and so His cousins 
german — consobrini. Some make them His cousins on His father’s 
side, not on the mother’s — patrueles; and some, His cousins on both 
sides. These three theories are sometimes called from the names of 
their original or chief advocates, the Helvidian, the Epiphanian, and 
the Hieronymian.! It is the last theory, as most generally held, which 
we will first examine. 

1. Hieronymian Theory.— In a question involving so many intricate 
details, we will begin our inquiry by asking, What blood relatives had 
the Lord’s parents? There are two sources of information, the New 
Testament and tradition. From the first we learn very little of 
Joseph. Aside from the genealogical tables, nothing is said of his 
relatives or of his history. In the table (Matthew i. 16) his father’s 
name is given as Jacob, the son of Matthan; in Luke (iii. 23), if we 
accept this as the genealogy of Joseph, it is Heli. Nothing is 
said as to his age at the time of his marriage to Mary, or as to any 
former marriage. 

Of Mary’s relatives, the New Testament gives us very slight infor- 
mation. She is called a ‘‘ cousin” of Elisabeth — cvyyevis—R. V., 


1See Bp. Lightfoot, Com. on Galatians, Dissertation II. 242. 


4 


4 


5 
d 


Part I] THE LORD'S BRETHREN, 113 


“ Kinswoman” (Luke i. 36). We know that she had a sister only by 
incidental mention (John xix. 25): ‘‘ Now there stood by the cross of 
Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, 
and Mary Magdalene.” (In W. and H. Tisch. for Cleophas is read 
Clopas: So R. V.) The relation of Mary to Clopas is undetermined, 
Mapla 7 700 KAwrG. ##$Examining this passage, two questions arise, 
one of punctuation, and one of relationship. Are there three women 
mentioned here, or four? If three, we have, first, the Lord’s 
mother; second, Mary her sister, who is called the wife of Cleophas; 
and third, Mary Magdalene. If four, we have, first, the Lord’s 
mother; second, her sister, name not mentioned; third, Mary wife of 
Cleophas; and fourth, Mary Magdalene.’ 

If we assume that there were four, and that the Virgin’s sister was 
not Mary of Clopas, who was she? It is said by some that she was 
Salome the wife of Zebedee, and mother of the two apostles, James 
and John. (So Wies., M. and M., Eders., Dwight.) Tradition has 
been busy with Salome, as with Joseph and Mary. According to one 
report accepted by a Lapide, she was the daughter of Alpheus and 
Mary, and older than her brothers, James and Joses, and, of course, 
the Lord’s relative in the same degree. Her two sons were thus much 
younger than their uncles, James and Joses. According to another 
report she was the daughter of Alphzus by aformer marriage. (For 
other accounts, see Winer, sud voce.) 

If this were so, her sons were the Lord’s relatives; and some find 
a proof of this in the request of their mother for the two highest 
places in His Kingdom (Matt. xx. 20). But this may be explained 
by the high estimation in which they stood in His eyes. If they had 
been His cousins — blood relatives — some trace of it would be found 
in early tradition, but there is none. If she was not Salome, we 
have no knowledge whatsoever of this sister of the Virgin. 

Assuming for the present, that the sister of the Virgin, using the 
term sister in its ordinary sense, was Mary, that she was the wife of 
Clopas, and identifying Clopas with Alphzeus, had they any child- 
ren? This we can ascertain only by a minute comparison of names 
and relationships, and this our space does not permit. Let us then 
admit that Alpheus and Mary had two sons, James and Joses, and 
perhaps two more, Judas and Simeon, though this is much disputed, 


1 As to the point whether three or four women, modern opinions are much divided. 
In favor of three: Neander, A. Norton, Stier, Mill, Bleek, Ebrard, Ellicott, Godet, Pres- 
sensé, Caspari, McClellan, and all Roman Catholic writers. In favor of four: Lucke, 
Wieseler, Ewald, Meyer, Schaff, Riggenbach, Luthardt, Edersheim, Weiss, Woolsey, 
Westcott, Dwight. In the Syrian version we read: ‘‘His mother, His mother’s sister, 
and Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.” (Murdock’s Trans.) 


114 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part L 


and the proof is not strong; and some daughters. Can we identify 
them with the brothers and sisters of the Lord? Here, three points 
are to be considered: 1st, the actual degree of relationship; 2d, the 
fact that the Lord and His brethren made one household; 3d, the 
use of the terms brother and sister, as denoting the relationship. 

i. It is obvious that if our Lord had any cousins in the true sense 
—pblood relatives — it must have been on the mother’s side. The 
children of Alpheus, admitting him to have been the brother of 
Joseph, the husband of Mary, were not relatives of this degree unless 
his wife was a blood relative of the Virgin. If the two were sisters, 
then only their children were cousins. 

But it is said by many Roman Catholic writers that the Virgin 
had no sister; she was the only child of her parents... The term 
‘sister ” (John xix. 25) is therefore equivalent only to ‘‘ kinswoman ” 
or ‘‘relative.” But a relative of what degree? Here, all is uncer- 
tainty, and we cannot affirm that, on His mother’s side, the Lord had 
any blood relatives. a Lapide quotes Baronius as affirming that the 
Virgin had three female relatives —tres ponit Marias sorores, id est 
tonsobrinas B. Viginis—one the wife of Alpheus, one the wife of 
Cleophas, and one the wife of Zebedee. How these three Maries were 
related to the Virgin and to one another, we are not told. 

We now ask in what relationship Alpheus stood to Joseph and 
Mary? It is said by Hegesippus (Euseb. iii. 11), that Joseph and 
Alpheus were brothers, and this is regarded by many as trustworthy ;? 
but others understand this as meaning that they were brothers-in-law, 
having married sisters. But admitting their brotherhood, the children 
of Alphzus were not, therefore, the Lord’s cousins, although nephews 
and nieces of Joseph. If, indeed, Joseph and the Virgin were 
cousins, she being, as some say, the eldest daughter of his father’s 
brother, then Alpheus was also her cousin, and his children the 
Lord’s cousins in the second degree. 

The many uncertainties we find as to the relationship of these sev- 
eral parties make any conclusions of little value. Had the Virgin a 
sister? Was she the ‘‘Mary of Clopas”? In what relation did she 
stand. to Clopas—as wife, or mother, or daughter? Was Clopas the 
the same as Alpheus ? Is he to be identified with the Alphaus, 
the father of Levi? Was he the brother of Joseph? What children had 
he? Tothese and other questions we can give no positive answers. 
If the Virgin had no sister, but had a female relative of an unknown 
degree, who had children, these were only kinsmen of Jesus in an 
indefinite sense. We do not know what the actual degree of con- 


1 Welte u. Weltzer, Kirchen Lex., 6, 837; Hofmann, 5; Friedlieb, 330. 
2 Bleek, Godet, Edersheim, Bp. Lightfoot. 





Part I.] THE LORD’S BRETHREN. 115 


sanguinity between the Lord and the children of Alpheus was, or 
whether there was any. 

2. Let us consider the fact, that the Lord and His brethren made 
one household under the care of the Virgin. If these were the children 
of Alphzeus and Mary, it implies that one parent, at least, was dead. 
Some say that, Alphzus dying early, Joseph took his widow and her 
children into his own house, perhaps adopted them as his own;?! 
others, that, Joseph dying first, Alpheus took the Virgin and Jesus 
to his house; and others, that, Alpheus dying without children, 
Joseph married the widow according to the law of the levirate mar- 
riage. (On the various and discordant views of the fathers, see a 
Lapide on Matt. xiii. 55.) It is plain that all these are merely con- 
jectures, and do not sufficiently account for the fact that the Lord’s 
brothers always appear as under the immediate care of the Virgin, no 
mention being made of their own parents. If it were proved that 
Alpheus died first, and that Joseph took his children and adopted 
them, and himself died later before the Lord began His public min- 
istry, and that the two widows and their children made one family; 
it is very improbable that the other Mary should never be spoken of 
even by those who, as the Nazarenes, were well acquainted with 
their domestic relations. We must, therefore, conjecture, that she 
also was dead. 

3. The use of the terms denoting the relationship. If there was 
any consanguinity, there is no proof of it closer than that of cousins of 
the second degree. Why, then, do the Evangelists call them ‘‘brothers 
and sisters” ? The advocates of this theory affirm that these terms 
are used in the indefinite sense of *‘ relatives” and ‘‘ kinsmen,” not in 
their primary and usual sense. But if this be the meaning of the 
Evangelists, why do they not use the more indefinite terms? It is 
obvious that when Jesus is called the ‘‘son” of Joseph, or Joseph is 
called his ‘‘ father,” the relation is not that which the terms usually ex- 
press, and this from necessity; it is not so when called ‘‘the son of 
Mary.” If the Lord had cousins-german, there is no reason why they 
should not be so called, the Greek tongue having a special word for 
that relation. If St. Paul (Col. iv. 10) spoke of ‘‘ Marcus, sister’s 
son to Barnabas,” (in R. V., ‘‘the cousin of Barnabas,”) why was it 
not used here where it would be wholly appropriate ? The reply that 
the Jews had no special word to express this relationship, and there- 
fore used the word brother to express it,? is not wholly accurate. 
Brother in Hebrew, in its first and proper sense, applies to those who 


1 So Déllinger, 104; Schegg; Matt. xii. 46. 
2So Maldonatus, Matt. xii. 46; Solitos consobrinos et cognatos Panes appellari, 


116 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part L 





have the same parents, or one parent in common; it defines that de 
gree of blood relationship, but it does not define other degrees, as __ 
that of cousin. When used of others, not brothers and sisters, it 
affirms some relationship which may be of blood or alliance or friend- 
ship, the nature of which must be learned from other sources.? 
When the Nazarenes asked: ‘‘ Are not His brethren James, and Joses, 

and Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?” 
they either expressed a definite relationship such as the words mean, 

or one wholly indefinite. We cannot doubt that they meant to ex- 
press more than the fact of some undefined relationship. They do 

not ask, Are not these His kinsmen and kinswomen? They speak of 
brothers and sisters; had they meant cousins, the nephews and 
nieces of Joseph, they would have expressed it in some other way. 

It is clearly better to hold to the primary meaning of these terms, 
unless compelled to depart from it. If we regard them as equivalent to 
relatives, we cannot tell what degree of relationship in any given case 
is intended, but must learn this in some other way. Most transla- 
tions of the Gospels render them in the definite sense. So the Vul- 
gate, Luther, Weizsicker, and English versions. But Norton, in his 
translation of the Gospels, uses the terms, ‘‘ kinsmen,” ‘* He and His 
mother and His kinsmen,” ‘‘ His kinsmen said to Him,” ‘‘ And His 
kinsmen James and Joses . . . and His kinswomen.” If we de- 
part from the primary meaning, this is doubtless the best rendering 
as expressing the fact of kinship, but leaving undecided its degree. 
The burden of proof lies upon those who affirm that the terms, 
‘‘ brothers and sisters,” are used by the Evangelists in the indefinite 
sense of ‘‘relatives or kinsmen.” This proof is supposed to be 
found in the language of St. Paul (Gal. i. 19), where he speaks of a 
James as ‘‘the Lord’s brother.” It is said that this is James the 
Apostle, the son of Alphzus; and as the children of Alpheus were 
His cousins in the first or second degree, we may infer that all of 
them are called by the Evangelists His brothers and sisters. 

We meet here with many perplexing questions, but the central point 
is, whether there were two or three Jameses. We know that there 
were two, James the son of Zebedee and James the son of Alpheus, 
both of the Twelve (Mark iii. 17 ff.). Was thereathird? This is 
denied by those whose theory we are now examining. They affirm 
that James the Lord’s brother and James the son of Alpheus were one 
and thesame person. Without entering into details, we must hold that 
the two are not to be identified. It is not clearly shown that St. Paul 
calls the Lord’s brother an apostle. After speaking of seeing St. Peter 


1 See Laurent, Veulestamentliche Studien, 156. 


Part L.] THE LORD’S BRETHREN. 117 


_at Jerusalem, St. Paul says: *‘But others of the apostles saw I 
none save James, the Lord’s brother.” (R. V. margin, ‘‘ but only.”) 
Does he mean, ‘‘I saw no other of the apostles save James?” If 
so, James is included among the apostles. But the words may be 
rendered: ‘‘I saw none other of the apostles, but I saw James, the 
Lord’s brother.” Thus rendered, James is brought into contrast with 
the apostles, and excluded from them.* But if included among them, 
is the word ‘‘apostle” used here in its narrower or largersense ? If this 
James was the son of Alpheus, he was one of the Twelve; and those, 
therefore, who think that he is here called an apostle only in the larger 
sense, exclude him from the Twelve, and so deny him to be the son of 
Alpheus,’ and thus make three Jameses. 

It should here be noted that those who identify James the son of 
Alpheus and James the Lord’s brother, make one or more of the other 
sons to be apostles. This is said of Judas. Mill says: ‘‘ James and 
Jude are found to be of the Twelve, and Simon has been by many 
not improbably thought identical with Simon Zelotes of the same 
number.” § 

But here we meet the difficulty that only six months before the Lord’s 
death itis said by John vii.5: “ For neither did His brethren believe 
on Him” ; and yet two, if not three of these brethren, it is claimed, (a 
third, Simon, if not an apostle, is said to have been one of the Seventy, ) 
were apostles, and had been living with Him as such, and sent out by 
Him ona special mission. It is not satisfactory to say that they had 
only a little faith, or had temporarily lost their faith; the Evangelist’s 
words clearly affirm that up to this time His brethren had not 
believed on Him, and did not count themselves as His disciples, as thus 
distinguished; nor do the narratives distinguish between them as part 
believers and part unbelievers. We are bound to include them all in 
‘one class or the other. So in Actsi. 14 and 1 Cor. ix. 5 we cannot 
distinguish between them and say that two are to be counted among 
the apostles. 

We conclude, then, that James the Lord’s brother cannot be 
identified with James the son of Alpheus; and, therefore, the rela- 
tionship of cousin fails to be sustained, and with this the identity 
of his children with the brethren of the Lord is unproved. Who 


1As to the grammatical construction, see Winer, Gram.; Ellicott, 97, note 2; Bp. 
Lightfoot, in loco. In favor of the construction excluding him from the apostles, Grotius, 
Credner, Bleek, Schaff, Thiersch, Laurent, McClellan, and many; on the other, the Roman 
Catholics commentators in general, and Meyer, Lichtenstein, Pressensé, Bp. Light 
foot, Ellicott. 

2So Ellicott, Bp. Lightfoot, and many. 

So, as regards James and Judas, Déllinger, 104; Friedlieb, 333; a Lapide, 


118 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part 1 


James was and what place he held in the Church, are points that will 
soon meet us. 

2. The Epiphanian Theory.— But if the brethren of the Lord 
were not the children of Alpheus and Mary, who were they? 
We turn for an answer to the second theory mentioned before, 
that they were the children of Joseph by an earlier marriage. 
On what ground can such a marriage be affirmed? The New 
Testament gives us no hint of it, and we know of it only from 
early tradition. The first notice of it is in some apocryphal gos- 
pels, written probably in the first part of the second century. In 
them we are told that Joseph had several sons and daughters before 
his marriage with the Virgin, being then an old man.! Haye these 
statements a basis of fact, ‘‘ a genuine apostolic tradition,” or are they, 
as Jerome called them, ‘‘deliramenta apocryphorum”? There is cer- 
tainly nothing intrinsically improbable in them, and they may easily 
be separated from the legends in which they are imbedded, and we 
know that they were received very early by many of the fathers, both 
Greek and Latin,” and are accepted to this day by the Greek Church, 
and by many Protestants. All that we can now do, is to see whether, 
assuming their truth, they harmonize with and explain the gospel 
narrative. 

It is obvious at once, that some of the difficulties we have found 
in the examination of the former theory are removed. If Joseph 
had sons and daughters by a former wife, we can understand the 
use of the terms ‘‘the Lord’s brothers and sisters” by the Naza- 
renes. Knowing that he had been twice married, and ignorant of 
the mystery of the Incarnation, they would not hesitate to call the 
children of the first wife the Lord’s brothers and sisters. Very few 
among us at the present day would speak of children so related as 
half-brothers, unless there were some special reason for making the 
distinction. ‘ 

In this case, all of Joseph’s children must have been older than 
Jesus, and some of them much older, and this may help to explain 
their treatment of Him when they thought Him becoming too zealous 
or enthusiastic in His work (Mark iii. 21-31; see Mill, 223), and in 
general, their unbelief in His Messianic claims. It is probable, that 
James, who is generally thought to have been the eldest of the sons, 


1 In the “‘ History of Joseph,” ch. ii., the names of his children by his first wife are 
given — Judas, Justin, Jacobus, and Simon; and daughters, Anna and Lydia. See Hof- 
mann, 4. 

2 Maldonatus says, Matt. xii. 46, In gua opinione omnes paene auctores Graeci fuerunt 

. Ex Latinis, Hilarius et Ambrosius. See also the catena of references to the 
fathers in Bp. Lightfoot, 259. 


Part I.] THE LORD'S BRETHREN. 119 


was at this time between forty and fifty years of age, for he must 
have been some fifteen years old at the birth of Jesus. Naturally, 
they would all be disposed to look down upon Him as so much 
younger, and to give less credence to His divine mission. Persons 
of such maturity, and of fixed modes of belief, would not so readily 
accept His claims and teachings as brothers and sisters younger than 
Himself. The same feeling may have arisen here as in the case of 
Joseph and his brethren (Gen. xxxvii. 8 ff.), and given a keener edge 
to the proverb: ‘‘ A prophet is not without honor except in his own 
house.” 

If they were His elder brothers, we can also better understand 
their special position among the disciples after they believed on Him, 
and the high estimation in which they were held by the churches; 
we can also, in this way, best explain the official position and influ- 
ence of James, and the fact that he was the accepted representative 
of the Jewish Christians. It was to him, in all probability, that 
the Lord appeared after His resurrection (1 Cor. xv. 7), and per- 
haps through his testimony, all his brothers became believers, and 
were with the Apostles before the day of Pentecost (Acts i. 14); 
and it was of him that Eusebius speaks (Ch. Hist., ii. 25) as the 
first Bishop of the Church at Jerusalem. He was called the ‘‘ just,” 
and was a strict observer of the law, and the chief official repre- 
sentative of the Jewish Christian part of the Church (Acts xv. 13; 
xxi. 18). His age, his personal character, and his position, made 
him very conspicuous and influential; and if to this we add his 
relationship to the Lord, we can understand why he should be 
classed among ‘‘the pillars,” and his name be put before those of 
Cephas and John (Gal. ii. 9). We can also understand why Judas 
should designate himself in his epistle only as ‘‘ the brother of James,” 
the less known by the better known. 

- The Lord’s brethren seem to have been distinguished, for a time, 
both from the Apostles and the believers in general, as if forming a 
special class (1 Cor. ix. 5). Probably one ground of this distinction 
lay in the respect felt for those who, for so many years, had stood in 
such close communion with the Holy One; and possibly, also, their 
Davidic descent. 

But in this identification of the children of Joseph with the Lord’s 
brethren, there are some difficulties. If Joseph had sons older than 
Jesus, had they not the legal claim to the throne of David? If 
the claim of the Lord rested on His legal right as the adopted son 
of Joseph (see a Lapide on Matt. i. 16; Mill, 210), had not His elder 
brother, James, a prior title? But if His title came through His 


120 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part L. 


mother, as is implied in the angei’s words, ‘‘The word God shall 
give unto Him the throne of His father David,” the difficulty is 
removed. (So Bengel: Jpsa erat heres partis suae, et jus regni David- 
icae in Jesum transmittebat. ) 

Again, as the children of Joseph were all older than Jesus, it is 
not easy to explain their continued presence with His mother; it is 
natural to suppose that they were already, at the beginning of His 
ministry, married men, and residents in some town in Galilee, 
whether in Nazareth or in its vicinity. It may be said that they 
were with her only on special occasions and when summoned by her, 
but the impression is made that they constituted one household. 

Again, it may surprise us, that the two families of Joseph and 
Alpheus should have so many sons of the same name, but this is to 
be explained by the poverty of names at that time, and so the con- 
stant repetition of afew. But that three or four cousins should have 
the same name is not so remarkable as that the same name should 
be given to two sisters.’ 

3. Helvidian Theory.— But if neither of the views already pre- 
sented is accepted by us, if the Lord’s brethren were neither His 
half brothers nor His cousins, they must have been His brothers in 
the full sense —the children of Joseph and Mary. This view has the 
great advantage that it takes the words ‘“‘ brother” and “‘ sister” in 
their natural sense. Passing by, for the present, the question of 
Mary’s perpetual virginity, and assuming that these were her children, 
how do we thus meet the conditions of the narrative? 

As they were, at least, six in number, and all younger than the 
Lord, He must have been, after Joseph’s death, the head of the fam- 
ily, and its responsibilities would devolve upon Him. (So Eders. i. 
250.) It is obvious that, in this position, He would have great influ- 
ence in moulding the character of the younger children; and this makes 
it more difficult to see why they should not earlier have accepted His 
teaching and mission. It may be said, indeed, that their attitude 
was not one of hostility, but rather of doubt; and that their domes- 
tic familiarity with Him was a hindrance to a right appreciation of 
His work. On the other hand, their youth best explains their pres- 
ence with their mother; and the sons still may have made one fam- 
ily, although the eldest at the death of Jesus was probably about 
thirty years of age. Still, there is another difficulty: if her own sons 
were then living, it is not easy to see why the Lord at His death 
should have committed her to the care of John (John xix. 26). This 


1 According to Smith, Bible Dict. i. 231, Josephus mentions 21 Simons, 17 Joses, 
and 16 Judes; and in the New Testament, mention is made of 12 Simons, and of nearly 
as many Josephs or Joses. Bp. Lightfoot, 255. 


Part L.] THE LORD’S BRETHREN. 121 


objection would also apply, though not with equal force, if they were 
her step-sons. But in our ignorance of the circumstances we cannot 
draw any positive inferences from this act of the Lord. It may be 
that He foresaw that she would have with John a life of greater 
peace and quiet than with her children, whether her own or those of 
Joseph; and tuat he could not only better supply her bodily wants, 
but also better comfort and strengthen her in the peculiar spiritual | 
trials through which she would be called to pass. 

But this view, that Mary had other children than Jesus, is sum- 
marily rejected by a very large part of the church, on the ground of 
her perpetual virginity. This is either an article of faith, as with 
the Greeks and Romans — Semper mansisse virginem, dogma est jidei,— 
ora matter of feeling. It is expressed in the Lutheran symbols, and 
in the Helvetic Confession the Lord is spoken of as natus ex Maria 
semper virgine. A large number of Protestant writers in all the re- 
ligieus bodies strongly maintain the perpetual virginity. Pearson’ says 
that the Church of God in all ages has maintained that she continued 
in the same virginity. But into the history of opinions, this is not 
the place to enter; each of the respective theories we have considered 
presents its claims to be the primitive belief of the Church. The views 
of the early fathers are very clearly, and it would seem, fairly, presented 
by Bp. Lightfoot, 260 ff., who himself holds the Epiphanian account 
to have the highest claim to the sanction of tradition. Of the 
Hieronymian solution, he says: ‘‘There is not the slightest indi- 
cation that it ever occurred to any individual, or sect, or church, 
until it was put forward by Jerome himself.” It is said by Thiersch 
(Versuch., 361, 431), that the Epiphanian view is the only tradition 
that existed during the second and third centuries, and was the rul- 
ing one till the time of Jerome. This father, writing against Helvid- 
ius, first gave currency to the solution that they were the cousins of 
the Lord, and hence is called by Baronius its fortissimus adstipu. 
lator vel potius auctor. On the other hand, for the defense of Jerome, . 
see Mill, 242 ff. 

The early belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary may perhaps 
be explained as springing in part from a desire to separate Christ, as 
widely as possible, from other men. He had no brothers or sisters; 
His mother had no other child. Thus, not only in His essential 
personality, but in the outward circumstances of His life, a broad 
line of distinction was to be drawn between Him and all beside. To 
suppose that He had brothers according to the flesh was to degrade 


1 Upon the Creed, Art. iii. 
2 So Mill, 272 ff., who gives the opinions of the chief English divines. 


6 


122 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part L 


Him by bringing Him into too close relationship with weak and sin- 
ful men. The special honor paid to Him would naturally cause high 
honor to be paid to His mother. To this was added the admiration 
of celibacy springing from Gnostic principles, that began very early 
to prevail. Both His parents were thought to be honored by being 
presented to the world as virgins. Occasionally from time to time, and 
especially for a few years past, the tendency has manifested itself to 
bring more distinctly forward the humanity of Christ, and to give 
prominence to the truth expressed by the Apostle (Heb. ii. 11): 
‘For both He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified, are all of 
one.” Not to remove Him from the pale of human sympathies, but 
to bring Him in as many points as possible into contact with the 
experiences of human life, has seemed to many best to correspond to 
the historical statements of the Gospel, and the doctrinal statements 
of the Epistles. Hence, perhaps, there is now felt less reluctance 
to regard Him as having been in the truest sense a member of the 
family, having brothers and sisters bound to him by ties of blood, 
and as a partaker of the common lot in all the relationships of life 
which were possible to Him, that thus ‘‘ He might be touched with a 
feeling of our infirmities.” 

Leaving all theological considerations on one side, the more 
natural and obvious interpretation of the language of the Evangelists 
leads to the belief that the Lord’s brothers and sisters were such in 
the ordinary meaning of the words. In the case of another no hesita- 
ation could be felt. (But for the right interpretation of their state- 
ments, particularly Matt. i. 25 and Luke ii. 7, we must refer to the 
commentators. ) 

It has been well remarked by Alexander (on Mark vi. 8) ‘‘that multi- 
tudes of Protestant divines and others, independently of all creeds and 
confessions, have believed, or rather felt, that the selection of a woman 
to be the mother of the Lord carries with it, as a necessary implica- 
cation, that no other could sustain the same relation to her; and that 
the selection of a virgin still more necessarily implied that she was to 
continue so. After all, it is not so much a matter of reason or of faith 
as of taste and sensibility; but these exert a potent influence on all 
interpretation, and the same repugnance, whether rational or merely 
sentimental, which led fathers and reformers to deny that Christ had 
brothers in the ordinary sense, is likely to produce the same effect on 
multitudes forever, or until the question has received some un- 
equivocal solution.” The words of Calvin on Matt. i. 25 deserve to 
be kept in mind: Certe nemo unquam hae de re questionem movebit nisi 
curiosus; nemo vero pertinaciter insistet nisi contentiosus rixator. 


Part I.] THE LORD’S BRETHREN. 123 


We may thus classify the more recent writers. 1. That His 
brethren were the Lord’s cousins is held by the Roman commentators 
and harmonists; So Patritius, Sepp, Bucher, Friedlieb. So also, by 
many Protestants: Olshausen, Lange, Lichtenstein, Mill, Ellicott, Keil, 
Wordsworth, Norton. 

2. That they were the sons of Joseph by an earlier marriage, is 
held by the Greeks in general. So also by Thiersch, Westcott, Bp. 
Lightfoot, Salmon. 

3. That they were the sons of Joseph and Mary is held by the 
large majority of Protestants. So Neander, Greswell, Meyer, Winer, 
Alford, Wieseler, Stier, Schaff, Ewald, Edersheim, Farrar, Godet, 
Weiss, Caspari, Beyschlag. 

See, upon this subject, Das Verhdltniss des Jacobus, Bruders des 
Herrn, zu Jacobus Alphai, von Philipp Schaf, 1842, Stier. Der Brief 
Juda; Wieseler, in Stud. u. Krit. 1842; Mill, Mythical Interpretation, 
219; Bp. Lightfoot, Galatians, Diss. ii., ‘‘ The Brethren of the Lord,” 
241; Greswell, ii. 108; Lichtenstein, 100. See also the several 
Bible Dictionaries: Winer, i. 525; Smith, i. 231 and 920; Riehm, 
663; Herzog, vi. 409; Schenkel, i. 482; McClintock and Strong. 





—_ 


PART IL. 


THE DIVISIONS OF THE LORD’S MINISTRY. 


In order to understand the scope of the Lord’s ministry in 
its external aspects, as narrated by the Evangelists, it is neces- 
sary to keep in mind certain great facts that gave it form and 
character. We shall thus be prepared to understand the sig- 
nificance of particular events, and to assign them their proper 
places in the history. 

First, The Lord came to a nation in covenant with God— 
His elect people. He had chosen for them a land in which they 
might dwell apart from the nations, and in a wonderful manner 
had given them possession of it. He had given them laws and 
institutions, which, rightly used, should secure their highest 
national well-being. He had established His temple in their 
chief city, in which He revealed Himself in the Visible Glory, 
and which was appointed to be ‘a house of prayer for all 
nations.” How highly they had been honored and blessed of 
God is seen from His words (Exod. xix. 5-6): “If ye will obey 
my voice indeed, and keep my Covenant, then ye shall be to me 
a peculiar treasure above all people, and ye shall be unto me a 
kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” And from among them 
should the great Deliverer, the Seed of the woman, come. The 
Messiah should reign at Jerusalem, and from thence establish 
justice and judgment throughout the earth. He was to be of 
the tribe of Judah, of the family of David, and His birthplace 
at Bethlehem; and many other things respecting Him had been 
foretold by the prophets. 

To a people thus in covenant with God, and awaiting the 
Messiah, Christ came. There was a general expectation that 
the long-promised King was about to come, and a general desire 


(125) 


126 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IT. 


for His coming. The appearing of the Baptist, and his message, 
gave a new impulse to the common feeling, and doubtless, in 
the minds of many, changed what had been but an indefinite 
expectation into an assured hope. But how should the nation 
discern the Messiah when He came? Would there be such 
wonderful signs attending His birth that it would at once be 
known? or would His infancy and youth be passed in obscur- 
ity? How would His public career begin? What would be His 
acts as Messiah? Here was a large field for differences of opinion 
among the people, according to differences in spiritual charac 
ter and discernment. But the great part of the nation, includ- 
ing most of the ecclesiastical rulers and teachers, seems to have 
had no doubt that He was to appear primarily, not as a relig- 
ious reformer, but as a political leader and warrior, and that 
one of His first Messianic acts would be to cast off the Roman 
yoke and set the nation free. This done, He would proceed to 
restore the Mosaic institutions to their primitive purity, and ful- 
fill the prediction that ‘out of Zion should go forth the law, 
and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” 

It is apparent that, thus mistaking the character and work 
of the Messiah, the very intensity of their desire for His com- 
ing would but the more certainly insure His rejection. They 
had formed conceptions of Him which Jesus could not realize. 
Their ideal Christ was not the Christ of the prophets. To be 
at once received by them, Jesus must act in a manner corre- 
sponding to their preconceived opinions, and thus fulfill their 
expectations. But this He could not do, since these expecta- 
tions were based upon misconceptions of their own moral needs, 
and of God’s purpose. They felt deeply their political servitude, 
but were unconscious of the spiritual bondage into which they 
had fallen. They knew not how utterly unprepared they were 
for the coming of their Deliverer, and that His first work would 
be to teach them what God demanded of them as His covenant 
people. Hence it was that Jesus could not openly assume the 
name of Messiah, because it had become the exponent of so 
many false hopes, and would have gathered around Him a 
body of followers moved more by political than spiritual 
impulses. 


Part II.] DIVISIONS OF THE LORD'S MINISTRY. 127 


Second, the will of God that the Jews shou'd receive His 
Son. Here, indeed, we meet the same problem that we meet 
everywhere in human history — the foreknowledge and purpose 
of God, and the freedom and responsibility of man. According 
to the eternal purpose of God, Christ was ‘‘ the Lamb slain from 
the foundation of the world,” and without the shedding of blood 
is no remission of sin. “Known unto God are all His works 
from the beginning of the world.” But the Jews knew not of 
this purpose, although, as we now see, it was not dimly inti- 
mated in their sacrificial rites. The Jews knew not, nor would 
God have them know, that they would crucify their Messiah. 
They had ‘not learned this from their prophets. The Baptist 
said nothing of His death; Jesus Himself, till near the close of 
His ministry, made no distinct mention of it; the Apostles, down 
to the week of His Passion, did not comprehend it. When 
therefore, Jesus presented Himself to the nation as the Messiah 
it acted without knowledge of the secret counsel of God, and 
with entire freedom. He desired that His people should receive 
Him. All that God had done for them from the days of 
Abraham, was with the intent that they should be a people 
ready for the Lord at His coming. The end of all the institu 
tions He gave them, was so to develop faith and holiness in 
them that they should discern and receive His Son. And 
Jesus, during His ministry, gave them every possible proof of 
His divine mission, and reproved and warned and besought 
them, that He might save them from the guilt of His rejection; 
yet allinvain. ‘He came unto His own, and His own received 
Him not.” How touching are His farewell words to Jerusalem 
(Matt. xxiii. 37): “How often would I have gathered thy child. 
ren together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her 
wings, and ye would not.” 

Third, as the covenant of God with the Jews was a national 
one, so must also Christ’s acceptance or rejection be. From the 
beginning of their history, God had dealt with the people as a 
corporate body. Their blessings were national blessings, their 
punishments national punishments. All their institutions, eccle- 
siastical and civil, were so devised as to deepen the feeling of 
national unity — one high priest, one temple, one altar, one royal 


128 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD, [Part 


family, one central city. What was done by the heads of the 
nation was regarded as the act of all, and involving common 
responsibility. Only in this way could the purpose of God, in 
their election to be His peculiar people, be carried out. Hence, 
in this greatest and highest act, the acceptance or rejection of 
His Son, the act must be a national one. It must be done in 
the name of the whole people by those who acted as their right- 
ful representatives. If those who sat in Moses’ seat should dis- 
cern and receive Him, the way for the further prosecution of 
His work was at once opened, and under His Divine instruc- 
tion the nation might be purified and made ready for the glori- 
ous kingdom, so often sung by the psalmists and foretold by the 
prophets. But if, on the other hand, He was rejected by the 
nation acting through its lawfully constituted heads, this 
national crime must be followed by national punishment. Indi- 
viduals might be saved amid the general overthrow, but the peo- 
ple, as such, failing to fulfill God’s purpose in their election, 
must be scattered abroad, and a new people be gathered out of 
all nations. 

It was under the conditions imposed by these great historic 
facts that the Lord began His ministry among the Jews. He 
came to a people in covenant with God; a people that God 
desired to save, and that must, as a people, accept or reject 
Him. All the details that are given us of that ministry by the 
Evangelists must, therefore, be viewed in the light of these 
facts. 

The first event that meets us in the evangelic narrative is 
the mission of John the Baptist, the forerunner of the Messiah. 
Had the chosen people been faithful to their covenant, no such 
work of preparation for their Messiah would have been neces- 
sary. As they were not faithful, God must prepare His way by 
announcing to them what He was about to do, and by calling 
them to repentance. John’s work was threefold. 

First, he was to announce that the kingdom of God was at 
hand, and the Messiah about toappear. In this announcement he 
especially displayed his prophetic character. To him it had been 
revealed that God would now fulfill His promises, and send the 
Redeemer of Israel. 





Part 11.] DIVISIONS OF [E~ _CRD’S MINISTRY. 129 


Second, he was to bring the nation to repentance, and 
“make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” Here he 
especially manifested himself as a preacher of righteousness. 
Of this righteousness the law was the standard, and by the law 
must the nation be judged. Hence, John was a preacher of the 
law. The burden of his message was, “ Repent, for the king- 
dom of God is at hand.” As a wicked, disobedient people, 
shey were not ready for that kingdom. True, they were 
« Abraham’s children,” and ‘‘sons of the kingdom,” but this did 
not suffice. They had broken the holy Covenant, they had 
not hearkened to God’s voice, and He had punished them 
terribly in His anger in the destruction of their city and temple 
by the Babylonians, and their long subsequent bondage to the 
heathen nations. The Baptist came to awaken them to a sense 
of their guilt, to make them see how by their unbelief and sin 
they had frustrated the grace of God, and thus to move them to 
repentance. Comparing the promises of God with their fulfill- 
ment, they might see how little He had been able to bestow upon 
them, how little they had answered to the end for which He 
chose them. How glorious the promises, how melancholy the 
history! Their national independence was gone; the covenant 
with the house of David was suspended, and the royal family had 
sunk into obscurity. Their high priest was appointed by the 
Roman governor for political ends, and was a mere tool in his 
hands; the priesthood, as a body, was venal and proud; the voice 
of prophecy had long been unheard, and for the teachings of 
inspiration were substituted the sophisms and wranglings of the 
rabbis; the law was made, in many of its vital points, of none 
effect by traditions; the nation was divided into contending 
sects; a large party, and that comprising some of the most rich, 
able, and influential, were infidels, open or secret; others, aspir- 
ing after a higher piety than the observance of the law could give, 
wholly ceased to observe it, and withdrew into the wilderness 
to follow some self-devised ascetic practices; still more were 
bigots in their reverence for the letter of the law, but wholly 
ignorant of its spirit, and bitter and intolerant toward all whom 
they had the power to oppress. The people at large still con- 
tinued to glory in their theocratic institutions, in their temple, 


6* 


130 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IL 


in their priesthood, and deemed themselves the only true wor- 
shippers of God in the world. They were unmindful that almost 
everything that had constituted the peculiar glory of the theocracy 
was lost by sin; that the Visible Glory that dwelt between the 
cherubim had departed; that there was no more response by the 
Urim and Thummim; that the ark, with its attendant memorials, 
was no more to be found in the Holy of Holies; that all those 
supernatural interpositions that had marked their early history 
had ceased; in short, that the whole nation ‘‘ was turned aside 
like a deceitful bow.” 

To the anointed eye of the Baptist the unpreparedness of the 
nation for the Messiah was apparent. He saw how in it was 
fulfilled the language of Isaiah: ‘The whole head is sick, and 
the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the 
head, there is no soundness in it, but wounds, and bruises, and 
putrefying sores”; and he would, if it were possible, awake the 
people to a sense of their real spiritual condition. Unless this 
were done, they could not receive the Messiah, and His coming 
could be only to their condemnation and destruction. Deliver- 
ance was possible only when, like their fathers in Egypt, they 
became conscious of their bondage, and began to sigh and cry 
for deliverance (Exod. ii. 23). 

To awaken in the hearts of the Jews a deeper sense of their 
sins and of the need of cleansing, John began his work of preach- 
ing and baptizing. He taught that this baptism was only pre- 
paratory, a baptism of repentance ; and that the higher baptism 
of the Spirit they must still receive at the hands of the Messiah 
Himself, who was speedily to come. All whom he baptized 
came confessing their sins Thus, the extent of his baptism was 
an index how general was the repentance of the people, and on 
their repentance rested all further preparation for the Messiah. 

Third, John was to point out the Messiah personally to the 
nation, when He should appear. This was the culminating 
point of his ministry, and would naturally come near the close 
of the preparatory work. 

Let us, now, survey for a moment the Baptist’s ministry as 
narrated by the Evangelists, and see how far its purpose was 
accomplished. First, he aroused general attention to the fact 


Part II.]_ DIVISIONS OF THE LORD'S MINISTRY. 13] 


that the Messiah was at hand. Second, his preaching brought 
great numbers to repentance. Multitudes from every part of the 
land came to his baptism. But of these it is probable that many 
did not understand the significance of the rite, or truly repent of 
their sins. Perhaps with comparatively few was the baptism with 
water a true preparation for the baptism with the Holy Ghost. 
And it is to be specially noted that those thus coming to John 
to be baptized were mostly, if not exclusively, of the common 
people, and not of the priests, or Levites, or members of the 
hierarchical party. Many of the Pharisees and Sadducees came 
to be spectators of the rite, but only with hostile intent; or if 
some received baptism at his hands, we find few or no traces of 
them in the subsequent history (Matt. iii 7; Luke vii. 29-30). 
In the hearts of those who sat in Moses’ seat, the spiritual 
rulers and guides of the nation, no permanent sense of sin 
was awakened, and they could not submit to a baptism of 
which they felt no need. To all his exhortations they had 
the ready and, as they deemed, sufficient reply, “We have 
Abraham to our father.” Thus John did not effect national 
repentance. The highest proof of this is seen in the Deputation 
that was sent him from Jerusalem to ask him who he was, and 
by what authority he acted (John i. 19-27). It is plain from 
the narrative that he was wholly unable to satisfy the Jewish 
leaders that he was divinely commissioned, or that his baptism 
had any validity. It followed, of course, that they paid no heed 
to his prophetic or personal testimony to tle Messiah. 

As his chief official act, he pointed out Jesus in person to the 
nation represented in the Deputation that came to him from 
Jerusalem as the Messiah. He whom he had foretold was 
come. Henceforth they must see and hear Him. 

Turning now to the ministry of the Lord, let us consider it 
in its relations to that of the Baptist, and as under those historic 
conditions that have been already mentioned. Having been 
publicly witnessed to by the Baptist, His first work was to 
present Himself to the Jews as their Messiah, in whom the 
covenants of God with Abraham and David should find their 
fulfillment, and all the predictions of the prophets be accom- 
plished. He did not, indeed, assert in so many words that He 


132 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part II 


was the Messiah, but left them to infer from His words and 
works who He was. They must now seek Him out, and learn 
from His own lips what were his Messianic claims, as did the two 
disciples at Bethabara. Of His Divine Mission He must give 
proof, first and chiefly, by His words, which should show Him 
to be sent of God, an inspired teacher and prophet; and second, 
by His works, which should show Him to be the Power of God. 
All the scriptural expectations-created by the announcement 
of John were to be realized in Him. As the elders of the peo- 
ple gathered themselves together unto Moses (Exod. iv. 29), and 
co-operated with him in the work of their deliverance, so now 
must the priests and Levites, and all who by God's appointment 
held any office among the people, be co-workers with Jesus. In 
this way only was it possible that the promises of the Covenant — 
could take effect, and the predictions of the prophets be fulfilled. 
Thus presenting Himself to the people, and especially to its 
ecclesiastical rulers, and having shown by the evidence of His 
own works and words, corresponding to the testimony of the 
Baptist, that He was the Messiah, He must await the action of 
the nation. 

The obstacles that stood in the way of His acceptance are 
obvious. The nation was morally unprepared for Him. While 
so many were looking for Him, few were looking for Him in 
such a guise. To say nothing of the obscurity in which He had 
hitherto lived, and of His supposed birth at Nazareth, His pres- 
ent conduct in no degree corresponded to their expectations. 
His first public manifestation of Himself in the cleansing of the 
temple displeased the priests, for it was a sharp rebuke to them. 
Nor did He make friends with the Pharisees, who doubtless 
believed that, when the Messiah appeared, He would first of all 
seek them out, and make an alliance with them; but they saw 
no such movement on His part, and those who for a time might 
have been friendly to Him, soon turned away. The common 
people judged Him more favorably. , His wisdom and eloquence 
could not be questioned, nor the fact that He wrought miracles ; 
but all this did not suffice. He might be a teacher sent from 
God, or a prophet, but the Messiah must be much more than 
this. He might perhaps be, as John declared himself to be, a 


Part II.] DIVISIONS OF THE LORD’S MINISTRY. 133 


fozo.wuner of the Messiah. A few, mostly or wholly from the 
ranks of John’s disciples, at once received Him as the Messiah, 
but, as afterward appeared, with most imperfect conceptions of 
His person and work; the people at large, and their rulers, dis- 
cerned Him not. It is plain, from the account of Nicodemus 
(John iii. 1-2), that the presentation of Himself at Jerusalem, 
and His words and works there, had called forth no response 
from the ecclesiastical leaders. Even now their incredulity was 
shown in a demand for a sign, which He would not give. 

Whatever hostility had manifested itself at this His first 
public appearing in Jerusalem, still there was hope that it might 
be removed by greater knowledge of His character and work. 
The Lord, therefore, still remaining in the province of Judea, 
and thus directly under the eyes of the priests, and where they 
might easily visit Him, begins the work of baptizing. Many 
gather around Him, and receive baptism at the hands of His 
disciples. But it does not appear that any of the Pharisees, or 
of the higher and more influential classes, were among them, 
and still less any of the rulers. After a summer thus spent, 
His enemies endeavoring to sow dissensions between His disci. 
ples and those of John, He gives up His baptismal work, and 
retires into Galilee. Nearly a year had now passed since He had 
been pointed out as the Messiah to the nation, and yet very few 
had received Him as such ; and all who bore rule, or certainly 
most of them, manifested an increasing hostility. Hehad found 
no general, much less a national, reception. 

After a few weeks spent in seclusion in Galilee, Jesus goes 
up the second time to Jerusalem to a feast, and heals the im- 
potent man at the pool of Bethesda (John v.). The charge 1s at 
once made against Him that He had broken the Sabbath by this 
work of healing, and His defense, based upon His Divine Son- 
ship, so offended the ruling party that His life was in danger. 
This open manifestation of hostility marks the first great turning- 
point in the Lord’s ministry. It was now apparent that the rul- 
ers at Jerusalem would neither listen to His words, nor be con- 
vinced by His works. So far from recognizing in Him the 
Messiah, His acts were violations of the law, and His defense 
blasphemy. Henceforth, they stood to Him in an attitude of 


134 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IL 


avowed hostility, and waited only for a sufficient pretext to 
arrest Him and put Him to death. How far in this they rep- 
resented the sentiment of the people at large, it is impossible 
for us to say, but it appears from the subsequent history, that 
although many came to Christ’s baptism, yet He had not at any 
time a large body of adherents in Judea. So far as appears, the 
oeople there acquiesced in the decision of their rulers. 

Forced to flee from Jerusalem, the Lord goes into Galilee. 
And now the second stage of His ministry begins. His work 
in Galilee seems to have had a twofold purpose. It was first 
directed to the gathering of disciples, such as hearing His words 
felt their truth, and seeing His works recognized in them a 
Divine power. To Him, the true Light, all who loved the light 
would come. Thus He gathered around Him the most recep- 
tive, the most spiritually minded from every rank and class, 
and teaching them, as they were able to hear, the mysteries of 
His Person and of His kingdom, prepared them to be His wit- 
nesses unto the nation. Through the testimony of a body of 
faithful disciples, the rulers at Jerusalem might yet be led to 
hearken to His words, and their own faith be quickened by the 
faith of others, and thus the nation be saved. But if this were 
in vain, and neither the words of the Baptist, nor the teachings 
of Jesus Himself and His works, nor the testimony of the dis- 
ciples, could convince them, these disciples would still serve as 
the foundation of that new and universal church which God 
would build if the Jews rejected His Son. If, because of unbe- 
lief, the natural branches should be broken off and the heathen 
be grafted in, the Lord had those prepared in that body of follow- 
ers who could serve Him as the builders and rulers of the new 
household of God. 

Thus the gathering of disciples, while, on the one hand, it 
looked toward the acknowledgment by the nation of Christ's 
Messianic claims, and regarded such acknowledgment as still 
possible, yet, on the other, looked forward to the hour when He, 
whom the Jewish builders rejected, should be the corner-stone 
of a church, in whose blessings Jews and Gentiles should alike 
participate. Of this future service, the disciples themselves 
knew nothing, nor could they till Christ had ascended. For 


Part IL.] DIVISIONS OF THE LORD’S MINISTRY. 135 


the present, He would teach them such truth as immediately 
concerned Himself, His Person, and Hiswork. He must deliver 
them from the false and narrow notions in which they had been 
educated by their rabbis, and, so far as they had ears to hear, 
open to them the purpose of God as revealed in the Law and 
the Prophets. 

Into the details of the Lord’s work in Galilee, this is not the 
place to enter. ~ Suffice it to say that He gathered many disci- 
ples, and that His fame spread throughout all the land. But 
he favor which was showed Him in Galilee did not propitiate 

is enemies at Jerusalem. They very early sent spies to watch 
His movements, and in concert with the Pharisees, who were 
found in greater or less numbers in all the villages, they organ- 
ized a systematic opposition to the progress of Hiswork. Every- 
thing was done to poison the mind of the people against Him as 
a transgressor of the law, and even as in alliance with evil 
spirits. The fact that a large number believed in Him as the 
Messiah, was so far from proving to the ecclesiastical authorities 
the reality of His Messiahship, that it only stimulated them to 
new efforts for His destruction. Thus, more and more, the hope 
that the nation, as represented in its rulers, could be brought to 
receive Him, faded away. He sent forth the Twelve as His 
witnesses, but they were not heard. His journey to the feast of 
Tabernacles and His reception at Jerusalem, showed in the plainest 
way that their hostility was undiminished (John, chs. vii.—x.). 
It was apparent to Him that the «Kingdom of God must be 
taxen from them and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits 
thereof,” and as preparatory to this, He began to teach His dis- 
ciples of His approaching death, resurrection, ascension, and 
coming again. 

The false conceptions entertained by the Jews respecting the 
person and work of the Messiah had to this time prevented the 
Lord from publicly assuming this title and proclaiming Himself 
the Son of David and rightful King of Israel. He spoke of 
Himself habitually as the Son of Man. But, as it became evi- 
dent that His death was determined upon, He will not permit 
+he nation to commit so great sin without the distinct knowledge 
of His Messiahship. They shall not reject Him as a simple 


136 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part [1 


prophet, or as a forerunner of the Messiah, but as the Messiah 
Himself. In the third or last stage of His ministry, therefore, 
we shall find His Messianic claims made prominent, both in His 
own teachings and in the testimony of His disciples, who, to the 
number of seventy, were sent two and two before Him as He 
journeyed to Jerusalem. In this city only could He die, for 
this was the “the City of the Great King,” and His death could 
not be by lawless violence, or in secret, but must be in the most 
public manner, and by a solemn and judicial act ; and here He 
must announce Himself as the true King, the Sen of David, the 
long-promised Deliverer. This He did when He entered the 
city, fulfillmg the prophetic word, “ Behold, thy King cometh, 
sitting on an ass’s colt.” He accepted, as rightfully belonging 
to Him, the homage of the multitude, who spread their garments 
and branches of palm trees in the way, and cried, “ Hosanna to 
the Son of David.” ‘Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh 
in the name of the Lord.” 

Thus, in the Lord’s public life, we seem to find three stages 
distinctly marked. The first is that period extending from the 
first Passover (John ii. 13) to the feast when the impotent man 
was healed (John v. 1), and embracing about a year. It began 
with the purgation of the Temple, and ended with the attempt 
of the Jews to kill Him because He made Himself equal with 
God. During this time, His labors were confined mainly to 
Judza. Near the close of this period, we may place the im- 
prisonment of the Baptist. The second stage is that period fol- 
lowing His return to Galilee immediately after the feast, 
and embraces the whole duration of His ministry there, or 
about a year and six months. This period may be divided into 
two, of which the death of the Baptist will serve as the dividing 
line. The third stage begins with His final departure from Gal- 
ilee, and ends with His death at Jerusalem, and embraces five or 
six months. The peculiarities of these several stages of ministry 
will be noticed more in detail as each shall come before us. 

If we put the beginning of the Lord’s public ministry at the 
Passover when He cleansed the temple (John ii. 14), we have, 
between His baptism and this Passover, a period of about three 
months, in which the following events occurred: the baptism; 


Part {1.] FROM THE BAPTISM OF JESUS. 137 


the temptation; John’s witness to the Deputation; the departure 
of Jesus with some disciples to Cana; His first miracle; He goes 
down to Capernaum; He goes up to Jerusalem to the feast. 
This period may be regarded as preparatory to His manifestations 
of Himself at Jerusalem. 


FROM THE BAPTISM OF JESUS TO THE FIRST PASSOVER OF HIS 
MINISTRY ; OR FROM JANUARY TO APRIL, 780, 27 A. D. 

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, John LuKg iii. 1-18. 
enters upon his work of preaching and baptizing. The peo- Marv, iii. 1-17. 
ple throng to him from all parts of the land, whom he bap- Maxx i. 4-11. 
tizes, and to whom he bears witness of the coming Messiah. 

After his ministry had continued several months, Jesus comes JOHN i. 32-34. 
from Nazareth to the Jordan, and is baptized, and immedi- LUKE iii. 21-22. 
ately the Holy Spirit descends upon Him. 


The chronological questions connected with this date have 
been already discussed in the essay upon the time of the Lord’s 
baptism. The only points that now demand our attention are 
those relating to the tetrarchy of Lysanias and to the respective 
offices of Annas and Caiaphas. 


In connection with Lysanias and the tetrarchy of Abilene, we 
meet with some historical difficulties. It was formerly said by some 
critics that Luke had fallen into error, and referred to a Lysanias, 
who, according to Josephus, had long before died, as contemporary 
with Pilate and Antipas and Philip. The accuracy of the Evangel- 
ist is now generally admitted,’ but a careful comparison of his state- 
ments with those of Josephus will show us why the name of a ruler 
is mentioned who did not rule in Palestine, or stand in any appar- 
ent connection with the Gospel history. 

Let us sum up what we know of the elder Lysanias and his 
territories. He was the son of a Ptolemy, king of Chalchis or 
Chalcis, a city lying in Coelesyria, northwest of Damascus, and iden- 
tified by Robinson with the present Anjar, where considerable 
ruins still exist (Josephus, War, i. 13. 1). Of the extent of his king- 
dom or the names of its provinces we have little knowledge. Lich- 
tenstein (132) infers from a comparison of the statements of Josephus 
that, besides Chalcis, the kingdom embraced Trachonitis, Iturzea, and 
Batanea (Wies., Beitrige, 199 ff.). This Lysanias succeeded to his 
father’s throne, 714, was put to death by Antony at the instigation of 
Cleopatra about 720, and a part of his dominions given to her 
(Joseph., Antiq., xv. 4. 1). It is not clear what was done by Antony 





1 See Meyer in loco. Schitrer, I. ii. 338. 


138 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD, [Part IL 


with the residue, but after his death it may have been restored by the 
Romans to the children of Lysanias, since it is said by Josephus 
(Antiq., xv. 10. 1) that one Zenodorus,—a relative and ruling 
over Trachonitis — farmed what was called ‘‘the house — olkia — of 
Lysanias” ; but whether in the interests of that family or of the 
Romans, is not said. It seems clear that in this grant to Zenodorus 
Abila and its territory was not included; although, as lying between 
Chalcis and Damascus, it formerly belonged to the kingdom of 
Lysanias. (See Joseph., Antiq., xiii. 16.3). Did Abila, after Antony’s 
death, come under Herod’s rule? This is said by Zumpt (298, note), 
who distinguishes between the city Abila and the province Abilene. 
But if so, it was not given by Herod to his sons; the view of others 
is more probable, that it was given again to the family of Lysanias. 

The original dominions of Herod were much enlarged by gradual 
additions. From Zenodorus Augustus took away his principality of 
Trachonitis, and gave it to Herod; and after the death of Zenodorus 
he gave to him the region between Trachonitis and Galilee, and 
Paneas and the country around. (Joseph., Antig., xv. 10. 3). In 
the division of Herod’s territories among his sons (Joseph., Antiq., 
xvii. 8. 1), to Philip was given Gaulanitis, Trachonitis, and Paneas; 
but this tetrarchy was not co-extensive with the kingdom of the 
earlier Lysanias; the northern part of the latter must either have 
been under the immediate rule of the Romans, or under some 
tributary prince. 

The existence of a tetrarchy under a Lysanias is several times men- 
tioned by Josephus (Antiq., xviii. 6. 10; xix. 5. 1). The emperor 
Caligula, on his accession in 790, gave to Agrippa I., grandson of 
Herod the Great, the tetrarchy of Philip and the tetrarchy of Lysanias, 
the last probably now having no prince. When Claudius four years 
later became emperor, he confirmed the gift, and added t6 his 
territories all that his grandfather Herod had possessed — Judea 
and Samaria; and out of his own territories he gave him Abila of 
Lysanias and all that lay at Mt. Libanus. To the same effect 
Josephus says (War, ii. 11. 5) that Claudius gave Agrippa the whole 
of his paternal dominions, and the district given by Augustus to 
Herod, Trachonitis and Auranitis, with the addition of another 
principality styled the kingdom of Lysanias. On his brother Herod 
he bestowed the kingdom of Chalcis. 

The question before us is, does Josephus here refer to the kingdom 
of the elder Lysanias who died about 720, some twenty years before, or 
to a principality then existing, and under the rule of a Lysanias ? 
There can hardly be a doubt that the last view is the true one. Of 


~' ein a 


Part II.] THE TETRARCHY OF LYSANIAS. 139 


this Lysanias and his principality we have no direct information. It 
may have been that Abila with its territory, and perhaps also Chalcis, 
had remained under the family of Lysanias, or been restored to it after 
Antony’s death; if it had then passed into the hands of Herod, it had 
been given up, after his death, to a Lysanias, probably a descendant 
of the earlier king. There is no good ground for identifying the 
original heritage of Lysanias with the tetrarchy spoken of by 
Josephus. The objection that historians make no mention of any 
Lysanias but the first, assumes the theory to be proved; and the 
other assumption, that Abilene, having once belonged to the king- 
dom of Lysanias, should ever after be called ‘‘ Abilene of Lysanias,” 
is most improbable, especially if we take it into account how rapidly 
those little kingdoms and principalities arose and passed away. 
Besides, why should Josephus speak of the ‘‘tetrarchy” of Lysanias 
if he referred to the older kingdom ? 

After the death of Agrippa (797) his dominion was reduced to a 
Roman province, and annexed to Syria (Antiq., xix. 9. 2), but in 811 
Claudius gave to his son, Agrippa II., the tetrarchy of Philip, with 
Abila, which had been in the tetrarchy of Lysanias. (Antiq., xx. 7. 1.) 
Thus for the second time this tetrarchy became a part of the Jewish 
territory; of its subsequent history nothing certain is known. 

We find, thus, good ground to believe that at the time of which 
Luke speaks— the fifteenth year of Tiberius— there was a princi- 
pality of Abilene of which a Lysanias was prince, and that the Evan- 
gelist, so far from being in error, shows himself well informed as to 
the political divisions of that earlier period. (In this agree, with 
some slight differences, such high historical authorities as Winer, 
Ewald, Zumpt, Wieseler, Schirer; of the commentators and harmon- 
ists, Meyer, Keil, Bleek, Lewin, Greswell, Godet; contra, Keim, Sevin. 

Abila, from which the province of Abilene took its own name, is 
identified in Baedeker (490) with the village of Suk Wady Barada, on 
the river Barada, a few miles northwest of Damascus. The name is 
popularly derived from Abel, and tradition points out a hill where he 
was slain by Cain. This Abila is to be distinguished from the Abila 
of the Decapolis, southeast of the sea of Galilee. (For the last, see 
Qt. St., July, 1889.) 

We can now see clearly the reason why Luke should have men- 
tioned the fact, having apparently so little connection with Gospel 
history, that at the time when the Baptist appeared, this tetrarchy 
was under the rule of Lysanias. It was an allusion to a former well- 
known political division that had now ceased to exist, and was to his 
readers as distinct a mark of time as his mention of the tetrarchy of 


140 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part 11 


Antipas or of Philip. This statement respecting Lysanias shows, 
when carefully examined, the accuracy of the Evangelist’s infor- 
mation of the political history of his times, and should teach us to 
rely upon it even when unconfirmed by contemporaneous writers.’ 

Having mentioned the civil rulers, Luke proceeds to mention the 
ecclesiastical. ‘‘ Annas and Caiaphas were the high-priests.” ‘In 
the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas,” R. V.;? (see Acts iv. 6, 
** Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas.”) Let us, therefore, con- 
sider the personal and official relations of these two men to each 
other. 

Annas was made high-priest by Quirinius, the Roman governor of 
Syria, in 760, but was deposed by Gratus in 767 or 768. He was suc- 
ceeded in office by Ismael, by his own son Eleazar, by Simon, and 
then by his son-in-law, Joseph Caiaphas. (John xviii. 13.)§ The 
latter was appointed 778, and held the office till 790. Schirer (in 
Riehm) thinks him to have been appointed much earlier, in 771. 
Afterward, several other sons of Annas became high-priests, and one 
of them, named Ananus, was in power when James, brother of the 
Lord, was slain.‘ 

It thus appears that, although Annas had been high-priest, yet 
Caiaphas was actually such when the Baptist appeared, and that 
he continued in office during all the public life of Christ. Accord- 
ing to the Mosaic institutions there could be but one high-priest at a 
time. The office was hereditary, and was held for life. As was to 
be expected after the Jews had fallen under bondage to the heathen 
nations, the high-priests, though nominally independent, became 
tools in the hands of their masters, and this high dignity was trans- 
ferred from one to another, both by Herod, who appointed seven, and 
by the Roman governors afterwards, as their political interests de- 
manded. Hence, there were often living at the same time a number 
who had filled this office, and been deposed. Probably other ex-high- 
priests besides Annas were now living, who were upon that ground, 
equally well entitled as himself to the name. That he should be distinct-. 
ively so called ‘in the passage before us, does not then seem sufficiently 
explained by the fact that he had been high-priest some years before, 


1 See, in reference to this point, Wieseler, 174; Lichtenstein, 130; Winer, i. 7; 
Robinson, iii. 482; that Luke mentions this tetrarchy because it had once been a part of 
the holy land, or to show “ithe political dissolution into which the theocracy had 
fallen,’’— so Godet, Lewin, is not apparent. 

2 The reading, éwi apxvepéws “Avva xai Kaiada, is now generally accepted. ‘Tisch., 
W. and H. 

8 Matt. xxvi. 3; John xi. 49. 

4 Euseb. ii. 23. For list of h’gh-priests, see Schiirer ii. 1. 197. 





: 
; 
\ 
| 
| 
| 


Part II.] ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS. 141 


and that he still retained the title among the people at large. Some 
ascribe the prominence given him to the fact that he stood high in 
popular estimation, and still exerted great influence; or that, as 
father-in-law of Caiaphas, he continued to direct public matters. 
Against this it may be said that Luke would scarcely have mentioned 
him in connection with the emperor, the governor, the tetrarchs, and 
the high-priest, unless he also was filling some high official position. 

If, then, we conclude that Annas is not mentioned merely as an 
influential private person who had once been high-priest, what office 
did he fill? The word dpyepeds, high-priest, does not decide it, as it 
is itself of indefinite signification. It is applied in the New Testa- 
ment to three classes of persons: firstand properly, to the high-priest 
in office; second, to all who had filled the office; third, to their fami- 
lies, ‘‘ the kindred of the high-priest ” (Acts iv. 6). As to its use in 
Josephus, see Schirer, i. 204. This writer, in Stud. u. Krit., 1872, 
classifies opinions under two heads, and discusses the questions, 
what political position had the high-priest under Roman rule, and 
what the position of those who had been high-priests. As Annas 
was not the high-priest in office, did he fulfill any of its functions ? 
Browne (71, note) thinks there may have been an interval of some 
months between the deposal of Simon and the elevation of Caia- 
phas, when Annas may have acted as high-priest. Hug (followed 
by Friedlieb)' supposes both Annas and Caiaphas to have held 
office at the same time, and to have officiated as high-priests in 
turn, one at one feast, and the other at the next; or, more prob- 
ably, one during one year, and the other during the next. For 
this supposition there is no good ground, and it implies a tenure 
of office inconsistent with facts.? Others, therefore, make Annas 
to have been the Wasi, or president of the Sanhedrin; others, as 
Schirer, affirm, that this office was always filled by the high-priest; 
others make him the vice-president, the office of president belonging 
to the high-priest; others still suppose that he was the sagan or vicarius 
of the high-priest, ‘‘in his absence to oversee, or in his presence to 
assist in the oversight of the affairs of the temple and the service of 
the priests.”* ‘‘ The vicar of the high-priest, the next in dignity to 
him, and the vice-president of the Sanhedrin.”* But the existence 
of such a deputy is doubtful;> and if Annas was the vicar of Caia- 
phas, why is he mentioned before him? Wieseler says that Annas was 
the head — Nasi—of the Sanhedrin, and Caiaphas of the temple 


1 Archdologie, 73. For like earlier opinions, see Nebe, Leidensgeschichte, 205. 
2 Josephus, Antiq., xviii. 2. 2. 
8 Lightfoot, ix. 38. 4 Greswell, iii. 200. 5 Winer, i. 507. 


142 LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IL 


priests (Beitrige, 205); Caspari, that Annas having been high-priest 
and Nasi, continued to fill the latter office. Some, finally, as Alford, 
referring to the fact that the Law directed the office to be held during 
life, suppose that Luke speaks of Annas as the lawful high-priest, 
one who, having held it, could not he legally deposed. Meyer 
thinks the Evangelist to have been ignorant who was the real high- 
priest, and that therefore he erroneously ascribes this title to Annas. 
Schirer (ii. 1) thinks that there is some inaccuracy in the Evangelist’s 
statements. 

It seems from the manner in which Annas is mentioned, not only 
by Luke but by John, that he did in fact hold some high official 
position, and this probably in connection with the Sanhedrin, perhaps 
as occasional president (so Keil). It is said by Edersheim, i. 264: 
‘Deprived of the Pontificate, he still continued to preside over the 
Sanhedrin.” This point will be further examined when we con- 
sider the part he took in the trial of the Lord. That, in times of 
such general confusion, when the laws of Moses respecting the high- 
priesthood were very little regarded, and offices became important 
according to the political capacity of those that filled them, the exact 
relations of Annas and Caiaphas to each other can be determined, is 
not to be expected. A like difficulty seems to exist in explaining the 
relations of Ananus ard Jesus, mentioned by Josephus (War, iv. 3. 9). 


We may, at this point, properly consider the political and other 
changes from the Lord’s birth to the beginning of his ministry (750 


— 


to 780) a period of about thirty years. This period was not so full of - 


political excitement as that preceding it under Herod’s rule, yet was 
by no means uneventful. 

Herod the Great left four sons who are mentioned by the Eyan- 
gelists: Archelaus and Antipas, sons of Malthace; Philip (the Tetrarch, 
Luke iii. 1), son of Cleopatra; and Herod (called Philip, Matt. 
xiv. 3), son of Mariamne, the daughter of the high-priest Simon. 
(Some disputed points in regard to this Herod will be later con- 
sidered. Joseph., War, i. 28. 4.) Herod, by his last will, divided his 
dominions among the three — Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip — sub- 
ject, however, to the approval of Augustus. (Joseph., Antiq., xvii. 8. 
1.) Augustus confirmed it in substance, but gave to Archelaus only 
one-half of his father’s dominions —Idumea, Judsea, Samaria — with 
the title of Ethnarch; and the other half he divided between Antipas 
and Philip, giving to the former Galilee and Perea, and to the lat- 
ter Batanea, Auranitis, Trachonitis, and a part of the domains of 
Zenodorus. (Antiq., xvii. 11. 4.) 





ABILENE 


4 
~ 
J3 Ne 
s -P 
Se: & 
Shechem, o Sychar fs O °Gerasa 
x ae Se oO 
NJ.- 
7 Ephraim ?} 
5 3 1 
Jericho 
Emmaus , ° 
Q 


| b Bethabara ¢ 
JERUSALEM? on 


Bethlehemo 


Vv 

Zz 
iy 
70 
r 
fe) 


o Macherus 


Juttah°? 








STRUTHERS & CO.N.Y. 


DAMASCUSo 











< [ + habe ants es 7 


| Ua eae ad Saad 7 
gO 
[per hae, 

S 
Soe 

| 

. 

. 7 


: 
| ' 
: 4 I 
‘ 
\ ; 
\ 
- \ 
: 7 
: 
' ’ 
- 
J 
A ; 





Part I1.] POLITICAL CHANGES. 143 


Archelaus, who from the first was hated by the Jews, and who 
treated them with great cruelty, was in the tenth year of his reign 
accused by them before the Emperor, who deposed him and banished 
him to Gaul. Judza was then —760—united to Syria, and put 
under the authority of the Syrian governor, but under the more 
immediate rule of a procurator sent from Rome. (Joseph., War, ii. 
8. 1.) Morrison, 121, says that ‘‘ Augustus decided to form the terri- 
tories of Archelaus into an independent province of the second rank.” 

Thus Judza became a Roman province in the Lord’s early youth, 
and continued such till after His death. Five procurators followed 
one another, the last being Pontius Pilate (779-789), their usual 
residence being at Czesarea, not in Jerusalem. When at Jerusalem at 
the feasts, they occupied the palace of Herod (Schirer and many, but 
others, the tower of Antonia). Under the first governor of Syria after 
Juda was annexed to it, Cyrenius, took place the taxing mentioned in 
Acts v. 37, (Antiq., xvii. 1. 11), when Judas, the Galilaean or Gaulonite, 
made an insurrection which terminated in his defeat and death, 760. 
This insurrection was probably confined to Judea, since the taxing 
(Acts v. 37) took effect there only, and not in Galilee then under the 
tule of Antipas. After the suppression of this insurrection, there 
seems to have been comparative peace in Judea until the administra- 
tion of Pilate, of which we shall speak later. 

Herod Antipas (Herod Antipas is never called Antipas in the 
Gospels, only Herod; Philip is called Philip only) began to reign 
over Galilee and Perza in 750, and reigned till he was deposed in 792. 
Under his administration, Galilee and Perea were in comparative 
quiet. Like his father, he was fond of building. He made Seppho- 
ris, lying only four or five miles from Nazareth, the metropolis of the 
country, and fortified it. He also built anew Livias or Julias, the 
old Betharamtha, on the north end of the Dead Sea; and later, he 
built Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee. (Joseph., Antiq., xxiii.2.1; Life, 
vil. 81; War, i. 3. 4.) 

Herod Philip is generally regarded as the best of the Herods, and 
ruled peacefully till his death, 787. He built Czsarea Philippi 
(Matt. xvi. 13), and also enlarged the village Bethsaida on the east 
bank of the lake. Here he built a mausoleum, in which he was 
buried. The larger part of the people of his tetrarchy were heathen 
of various races. 

As in Palestine there was but little change after Judea became a 
Roman province, so in the Roman Empire at large there was nothing 
affecting Jewish affairs; the death of Augustus, 767, and the succes- 
sion of Tiberius making no change in the general political adminis- 
tration. 


144 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. {Part IL 


But if the times after the suppression of the insurrection of Judas 
were comparatively uneventful, the minds of the Jews were by no 
means at rest. The death of Judas and dispersion of his followers 
did by no means extinguish the theocratic idea which controlled 
them. More and more it became the popular belief, that, as the coy- 
enant people of God, their duty to their Divine King forbade sub- 
mission to the Roman Emperor. As His elect, they might confi- 
dently count on His help in a contest with Rome, and they might 
hopefully look for the fulfillment of His promise to send the Messiah, 
who would be their leader. This smouldering fire slowly extended, 
becoming more and more intense, but did not burst into a flame till 
a few years after the death of the Lord. An observant eye could, 
however, see that the theocratic idea was pervading more and more 
the masses of the people, and that a struggle with Roman domination 
must soon come, a struggle unto death. 

But besides the more advanced who were watching to cast off the 
Roman yoke at the first moment, the conception of the Theocracy, 
the making the will of God supreme, undoubtedly strengthened itself 
among the great party of the Pharisees. This was seen in the impor- 
tance attached to the observance of the law, even in its minutest 
details. As the expression of the Divine will, it must be obeyed, 
even to the loss of property and life. Of this punctilious observance 
there are many examples in the Evangelists, but the most striking 
illustration is seen in the refusal for a time of the Jewish warriors to 
fight on the Sabbath, even in self-defense. (Joseph., Antiq., xii. 6. 2.) 

But, curiously enough, with many of the Pharisees, on the other 
hand, this high regard for the law made them indifferent to their 
political bondage. The observance of the law, they said, was the one 
great thing, and this observance being possible under the Roman 
yoke, there was no sufficient ground for rebelling. 

The Herodians, who supported the pretensions of the Herods to 
reign, were few in number, but of considerable political importance. 
It is said by Tertullian, (Praescrip. 45,) that they claimed Herod to be 
the Christ: Christum Herodem esse dizerunt. 

There was also a more important body, both in numbers, in rank, 
and in wealth, embracing the chief priests and their families, and 
many members of the Sanhedrin, who, for the most part, cared little 
for the Pharisaic traditions; and if they believed in any special cove- 
nant relation of the Jews to God, were little influenced by any 
Messianic hopes. These, for the most part, found it for their per- 
sonal advantage to uphold the Roman authority, and discountenanced 
anything that tended to cause an insurrection (John xi, 47, ff.). To 


Part 11.] POLITICAL CHANGES. 145 


these may be added the very few who, seeing in their subjection to 
Rome a just punishment of the national sins, refused to take into their 
own hands the work of liberation, but waited patiently for the liber- 
ating hand of God. 

Such, in brief, being the political and religious condition of the 
land, and so great the divisions of sentiment among the people, we 
see that there was much when the Lord began His ministry to agi- 
tate and excite the popular mind. It was no period of mental stag- 
nation, or of religious repose. Doubtless, all thoughtful men saw 
that the political quiet then existing could not long continue. The 
antagonisms of every kind were every day becoming more plain, 
more pronounced. And what shall we say of the Lord during these 
years? Was He not from His youth up a careful and deeply inter- 
ested observer of these tendencies? Did He not watch all that 
passed, and compare events with the revealed purpose of God; and 
especially with the prophecies respecting the Messiah and His king- 
dom? We cannot doubt this. He was well acquainted with the cur- 
rent Messianic conceptions and the popular expectations, and saw 
clearly how deeply rooted was the hatred of the Roman yoke; nor 
was the worthlessness of the Herods hidden from Him. Sepphoris, 
the chief city of Galilee, was close by Nazareth; and even if He 
never entered it, which is scarcely possible, He must have known what 
was going on at the court of Herod Antipas— the semi-heathenish 
vices and luxury that there prevailed. And He must have seen, in 
His yearly visits to the feast, how the temple of God was defiled by 
the covetousness and unholiness of many of the priests; and have dis- 
cerned the hollowness of much of the current Pharisaic piety. Yet 
here and there He would discern not a few meek and poor in spirit, 
who were hungering and thirsting after righteousness, fearing God, 
and striving to walk in all His commandments and ordinances 
blameless. 


The year during which John began his ministry was prob- 
ably a Sabbatic year (Ex. xxii. 11. According to Wieseler, 
Syn., 204, such a year was that from Tisri 779 to Tisri 780. 
Lewin, 60, reckons from Nisan to Nisan, but most agree with 
Wieseler. So Eders., McClellan. See Hamburger, i. 866. Gres- 
well, ii, 235, makes 780—781 a Sabbatic year. He admits, how- 
ever, that the received principles of the modern Jewish 
reckoning would require him to place it a year earlier.) If this 
year was then observed by the Jews according to its original 
intent, it was a most appropriate time for the Baptist to begin 


7 


146 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD, [Part 1L 


his labors, the people having no burdensome agricultural tasks 
to occupy them, and being thus at liberty to attend upon his 
instructions.’ It is said by Edersheim (The Temple, 160), that 
“the Sabbatic year was strictly observed by the Jews in the 
Lord’s day.” 

It is not improbable that John may have begun his labors 
as a preacher of the kingdom some time before he began to 
baptize. Some instruction as to the nature of the rite, and some 
exhortation to convince of its necessity, would naturally precede 
its administration. It is said by Pressensé that the Baptist came 
torth from the desert already attended by a band of hearers. 
His preaching need not have been confined to the banks of the 
Jordan, but may have begun in the wilderness, nor after he 
began to baptize, did he remain in one place only (Luke iii. 3). 
From the expression in Mark i. 4, “John did baptize in the 
wilderness,” some have inferred that he baptized before he 
came to the Jordan. But the Jordan was included in the well 
known designation “the wilderness.” This desert, called in Matt. 
iii. 1 ‘the wilderness of Juda,’ and which is mentioned in 
Judges i. 16, seems to have comprised all the region between the 
mountains of Judza on the one side and the Dead Sea and 
the lower parts of the Jordan on the other. According to 
some, this wilderness of Judza stretched along on the west side 
of the Jordan from the end of the Dead Sea to Seythopolis. 

The place where John baptized was Bethabara, or Bethany, on the 
east side of Jordan (John i. 28). Two questions here arise: Where 
was Bethabara? Was Jesus baptized there? But, first, we must 
inquire as to the text. It is generally admitted that the most ancient 
reading was Bethany, and that Bethabara found its way into the 
text through Origen, who was told that there was a Bethabara on the 
Jordan, but no Bethany. It has been suggested that the Bethabara 
meant by Origen might have been the Beth-barah in Judges (vii. 24); 
and some suppose that at different times the same place may have 
had both names, or that one was the name of a district, and the 
other of the village or ferry.” 


1 Ewald, Alterthiimer, 414. As to the refusal of the Jews to fight on Sabbatic years, 
see Joseph., Antiq., xiii. 8. 1. Caesar exempted them from tribute on the seventh year. 
Joseph., Antiq., xiv. 10.6. See Hamburger, i. 886. 

2 Accepting Bethany, are Tisch., W. and H. R. V.; contra, Stanley, 304, note. Byn@a8apa 
“house of crossing,’ ‘“‘ferry house; By@avia “house of misery.’ See T. G. Lex., 
eub voce. But, according to some, domus navis or domus transitus —“‘a house of a 
ship” or “‘ of passage,” 


Part II.] PLACE OF THE LORD'S BAPTISM. 147 


Assuming that Bethany is the right reading, where was it? That 
the village of that name near Jerusalem is not meant, needs not be 
said; and there is no place of that name on the Jordan, east or west. 
In the absence of any mention of such a village, efforts have been 
made to find it in the province of Batanza, on the east of Jordan. But 
some say that the province itself is meant. This province is mentioned 
by Josephus (Antiq., xvili. 4. 6; War, ii. 6. 3) as a part of Herod 
Philip’s dominions. But where was Batanea? Raumer (405), sup- 
porting himself on the statement of Josephus (War, iii. 3. 5) that 
Gamalitis and Gaulanitis and Bataneza and Trachonitis belonged to 
Juda, argues that there was a Judea beyond Jordan (Josh. xix. 34: 
‘Judah at Jordan toward the sunrising’’), and that this extended 
from the source of the Jordan down to the middle or lower end of 
Galilee (see his map). Caspari (89), citing Raumer, accepts his 
reasoning, and finds a Juda east of the Jordan within the limits of 
the ancient Gaulanitis, the modern Jaulan; and here, he says, we are 
to look for Bethany, the place of John’s baptism. (See Conder, in 
Qt. St., 1877, 284). It was, according to him, in the large plain of El 
Batihah, on the northeastern side of the lake, the site now known as 
Et Tell, where Robinson and others place Bethsaida Julias. It was 
this ‘‘ Judea beyond Jordan” which is mentioned (Matt. xix. 1), and 
where Jesus went after the Feast of Dedication (John x. 40. See 
Caspari’s map). But Conder (H. B., 315), thinks it pretty clear that 
Batanea was a district southeast of the Sea of Galilee, and probably 
extended westward to the Jordan, and southward to Pella. And 
here, on the east bank of Jordan, we are to find Bethany or Betha- 
bara, and here, a little north of Pella, he places it upon hismap. On 
the other hand, Porter (H. B., 499) identifies Batanea with a district 
east of the Lejah, and north of the range of Jebel Hauran, the old 
name being still retained among the natives. If this was its position, 
Bethania was far away from the Jordan. (See Bible Dic., sub voce: 
Riehm, art. Bashan.) 

Thus it appears that we reach no definite result as to the site of 
Bethany by seeking it as a village in the province of Batanga, or by 
identifying it with the province, since the position and limits of this 
province are in doubt. 

No satisfactory result being obtained in this way, let us ask what 
we learn from the Gospels as to the places of John’s baptism. Men- 
tion is made in them of two, Bethabara and Anon. (The site of the 
latter will be considered later.) That John may have baptized at 
different points along the river, is not in itself improbable. The 
words of Luke iii, 3, ‘‘He came into all the country about Jordan, 


148 THE LIFE OF OUR LURD, [Part IL 


preaching the baptism of repentance,” may be understood as embrac- 
ing all the places of his activity, earlier and later. Such change of 
place has nothing against it. 

It is intrinsically probable that the Baptist would seek a place for 
his baptism at or near some ford of the Jordan; and the narrative leads 
us to suppose that his baptismal work began in lower Perea, not far 
from Jericho, since here was a convenient place for the people to 
gather from Judea and Jerusalem, and also from Galilee (Keim, i. 
494). Two chief roads lead from Jericho to the east of the river, — 
that to Heshbon southeast, and that to Ramoth Gilead northeast. 
Ii we choose between the fords on these two roads, it could not well 
have been the lower, as the depth of the water is too great, and it 
would have been too far south for those coming from Galilee; we 
must, therefore, take the upper ford opposite Beth-Nimrah— now 
Beit-Nimrim — where was an ancient ferry, and where recently a 
bridge has been built. Of course, crossing the river is possible in 
many places when the water is low, but John would naturally select 
a spot on some great line of travel, and so easily accessible to all. 
We think there can be little doubt that he began his baptism on 
the lower Jordan at a point near Jerusalem. 

What light do we get upon this from tradition? As Joshua and 
the people crossed the Jordan ‘‘right against Jericho” (Joshua iii. 
16), it was natural that the early Christians should put the Lord’s 
baptism at the same place. This feeling is seen much later in 
Lightfoot, who says: ‘‘ There is reason to believe that John was bap- 
tizing in the very place where the Israelites passed over, and that our 
Lord was baptized in the spot where the Ark rested on the bed of the 
river.” But even if the places, as is probable, were not far apart, any 
identification of them is, of course, impossible. Tristram (B. P., 103) 
thinks that as ‘‘the principal ford was in ancient times opposite 
Beth-Nimrah, the passage under Joshua probably took place here, 
and here also Elijah probably passed” (2 Kings ii. 8). How early 
the Christian disciples began to baptize at the lower fords near 
Jericho we do not certainly know. It may have been as early as the 
second century. Jerome speaks of many that went there to be 
baptized — plurimi e fratribus ili renasci cupientes vitali gurgite 
baptizantur. Antonius in the sixth century speaks of a wooden 
cross in the middle of the stream; and Arculf (700 A. D.) says: 
‘‘A wooden cross stands in the Jordan on the spot where our 
Lord was baptized. A stone bridge raised on arches reaches from the 
bank of the river to the cross where people bathe. A little church 
stands on the brink of the water on the spot where our Lord is said 


Part II.] PLACE OF THE LORD’S BAPTISM. 149 


to have laid his clothes when he entered the river. On the higher 
ground is a large monastery of monks and a church dedicated to St. 
John. (Harly Travels, viii.) Willibald also, a little later, speaks 
“‘of a cross as standing in the middle of the river where is a small 
depth of water, and a rope is extended to it over the Jordan. At the 
feast of the Epiphany the infirm and sick come hither, and, holding 
by the rope, dip in the water.” These accounts would seem to intim- 
ate that this was not a ford or place of regular crossing, 

There are now the ruins of several monasteries on the west bank 
near Jericho. That known as the Jews’ castle—Kusr El Yehudi — 
and which, according to Robinson (i. 445), existed before Justinian 
(518 A. D.), is believed to be that which was dedicated to St. John 
the Baptist. These ruins are about eight miles north from the 
Dead Sea, and a mile north of the confluence of the Wady Kelt. 
On the south side of the Kelt is the Haglah ford, and this was regarded 
in earlier times by both Greeks and Latins as the place of the Lord’s 
baptism; but now they have their distinct bathing places some 
miles apart; that of the Greeks, near the Jews’ castle, that of the 
Latins below, but Robinson and Thomson and others say that the 
Greeks bathed lower down. ‘‘ The Greek pilgrims bathe at a spot 
where there is a vacant clearing down to the water’s edge; the Latins’ 
sacred place is higher up near the ruins of an old convent.” (Pict. 
Pal., 165.) McGarvey (342) puts the Greek bathing place about 
four miles north of the Dead Sea near to the Helu ford, and here, he 
thinks, Jesus was baptized. He speaks of the ford opposite Jericho 
as an admirable place for bathing. (Baed., 266; N. Test. map of the 
P. BE. F. See Lynch, 255; Ritter, Theil, xv. 536.) 

But both the time and place of the pilgrim baptisms have been 
changed. ‘Till the sixteenth century the pilgrims baptized at the 
Epiphany —the sixth of January, —after this at Easter; now the 
Greek pilgrims on the Monday after Easter. It is uncertain how 
early the Greeks and Latins began to have separate bathing places. 

But if it be admitted that the Lord was baptized, as most hold, on 
the lower Jordan near Jericho, perhaps at the ford opposite Beit- 
Nimrim, this does not identify it with Bethabara or Bethany, for the 
Baptist may have changed the place of his baptism before the Lord 
returned from the temptation. There are three views that may be 
taken of the matter: 1. That Bethabara was near Jericho, and that 
He was baptized there, and that He found John still there on return- 
ing from the wilderness. 2. That Bethabara was higher up on the 
Jordan, perhaps at the ford Damieh, or still higher at Succoth, or 
higher still near Bethshean, or at Abarah, or even above the entrance 


150 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IL 


of the river into the Sea of Galilee; and that from this point He de- 
parted into the wilderness. Both these views assume that Bethabara, 
wherever it may have been, was the place of His baptism, and that to 
it He returned after His temptation. 3. That Bethabara was not His 
baptismal place; He was baptized, perhaps, near Jericho, and thence 
went into the wilderness; but before He returned from the temptation, 
John had left that place and gone to Bethabara, and that Jesus went 
to him there. 

1. The first of these views, that Bethabara was on the lower Jordan 
near Jericho, is that most generally held; the chief objection brought 
against it is, that the distance from it to Cana of Galilee is too great. 
It is said that the Lord must have gone from there to Cana in one day, 
which He could not have done. (See John i. 43; ii. 1. So Caspari, 
Conder, and others.) But as we shall see in our examination of the 
passage, there is no good ground to say that the journey was made 
in one day. 

2. The second of these views, that Bethabara was higher up on 
the Jordan, has often been presented. Thomson thinks that to put 
Bethabara at the ford of Damieh some twenty miles above Jericho is 
not too far north to accord with the narrative. Merrill (198) speaks 
of a good ferry here, and on the east bank a Bethabara or ‘‘ house 
belonging to the ford.” According to Stanley, it was the ford near 
Succoth, which is some ten miles above Damieh. (Gen. xxxiii. 17; 
Judges viii. 4,5.) Caspari puts it on the east side of the Jordan just 
above its entrance into the Sea of Galilee. 

3. The third view, that the Lord was baptized near Jericho, but 
that John soon after moved up the river to Bethabara or Bethany, and 
was there when Jesus returned from the wilderness, was long since 
presented by Lightfoot. He says: ‘‘ Let us place the Bethabara we 
are seeking for on the further side of Jordan in the Scythopolitan 
Country.” But he holds that Jesus was not baptized here. His bap- 
tism was at ‘‘at the passage at Jericho,” and after this John baptized 
at the passage at Scythopolis. On his map of Canaan, Bethabara is 
put on the east side, between the Sea of Galilee and Lake Merom. 
Conder (Qt. St., 1878, 120) takes the same general view, holding that 
the Lord’s baptism was near Jericho, but that John soon after went 
some fifty miles higher up the river, and baptized at a ford which now 
bears the name Abarah, and is a little above Beisan or Scythopolis. 
With Conder Edersheim (i. 278) agrees, and thinks that the Baptist 
at this point had reached the most northern point of his mission 
journey. From this ford to Nazareth is little more than twenty 
miles. 


i i 


Part Il.] PLACE OF THE LORD'S BAPTISM. 151 


There is nothing which enables us to say positively that John, 
after the baptism of Jesus and during the period of the forty days of 
the temptation, did not leave the neighborhood of Jericho and go 
higher up the river, but there is nothing in the narrative to indicate 
this; and the language, ‘‘ where John was — 4» — at the first baptiz- 
ing” (John x. 40, R. V.), rather implies permanence; ‘‘He was 
employed in baptizing” (Meyer). But that he may have baptized 
at different points along the river is very probable, and is intimated 
by ‘‘first,” his later baptismal work having been carried on in other 
places. McGarvey (515), who made particular examinations as to 
this point, found many places where John might have baptized at 
ordinary stages of the water; and Conder speaks of some forty 
fords which he visited. The words of Luke (iii. 3), ‘‘He came 
into all the country about Jordan,” are understood by Ebrard (313) 
to embrace all the places of John’s baptismal labors, earlier and 
later. Ffoulkes (Smith’s B. D., i. 1127) supposes John to have 
baptized at three distinct fords of the Jordan: first, at the lower ford 
near Jericho, to which the people of Juda and Jerusalem would 
naturally come; second, higher up the river at Bethabara, to which 
the people of Galilee and the northern parts of the land came, and 
where Jesus was baptized; third, still higher up at Anon, a ford 
less frequented, but where was abundance of water. (Of non we 
shall speak later.) 

Was Bethabara the place where John began to baptize? This has 
been inferred from John x. 40: ‘‘ The Lord went away again beyond 
Jordan to the place where John at first baptized.” ‘ Where John was 
at the first baptizing ” (R. V.). This is read by Meyer: ‘‘ Where John 
was when he baptized for the first time”; 7. e., he began his baptism 
there. If this be the right understanding of the words, Bethabara 
was in or near the wilderness of Judea, and this would disprove the 
assertion that the site of Bethabara could have been above the Sea of 
Galilee, or a little way below. 

The time of baptism in the Jordan, as affected by the rain and 
heat, has already been considered in the chronological discussion. 
We may notice here an objection of Caspari’s (112) to John’s baptiz- 
ing in the lower Jordan, on the ground that it was unclean for pur- 
poses of lustration, and that he would have incurred the censure of 
the Pharisees and Sanhedrists. But this rests on very slender 
Rabinnical authority, and is not even mentioned by Hamburger or 
Neubauer in their articles on the Jordan. It is said by others that 
the Jordan takes its name only after it leaves the Sea of Galilee. 
(See Neubauer, 30.) Reland (273) notices the distinction of major 
and minor Jordan, and makes Lake Merom the point of divison. 


152 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IL 


The recognition of Jesus as the Messiah when He came 
to be baptized, is to be explained, not by the fact of prior 
acquaintance, for such acquaintance is by no means certain,’ but 
by the immediate revelation of God, and through an appointed 
sign. John knew the nature of his own mission as the herald 
of the Messiah, but he did not know who the Messiah was, or 
when He would appear. The mark by which he should 
recognize Him was one to be given at a fitting time, the super- 
natural descent of the Spirit upon Him (John i. 33). How far 
John may have had knowledge of the events connected with 
Jesus’ birth, or been brought into personal intercourse with Him, 
does not appear (Ebrard, 258). Assuming such knowledge on the 
ground of the intimacy of the two mothers, Elisabeth and Mary, 
the words of the Baptist (John i. 31), “I knew Him not,” are 
said by some to be in contradiction to the statements in Luke i. 
26 ff. If these mothers were so closely brought together, they 
ask, must not their children, as they grew up, have known 
through them of one another, and of the supernatural actings of 
God, and of the prophetic words spoken of them? Thus, 
Alford says: ‘From the nature of John’s relationship to the 
Lord, it follows that John could not but know those events 
which had accompanied His birth.” And would they not only 
have had friendly relations but also personal acquaintance? 
(Such acquaintance is affirmed by some, Hales, Townsend; contra, 
Ebrard, 319.) But we are to remember here that the purposes 
of God in these children, as made known to their parents, were 
something far too high and sacred to be made known by them 
to others without His direction. He who is admitted to the 
divine counsels knows that God has a fitting time for speech and 
a time for silence; and that those whom He takes to be workers 
together with Him must wait His bidding. What Zacharias 
and Elisabeth may have told John of the wondrous events con- 
nected with his birth, and of his calling to be the forerunner of 
the Messiah, we do not know; but there is every reason to believe 
that they said nothing. They knew that he must be prepared 
for his work by the spirit of God teaching him, and that the 
knowledge of his future mission could not be pre~aturely given 


1 Ewald, v. 162; Ellicott, 107, note ; Eders., i. 282. 


Part Il.] | RECOGNITION OF JESUS BY JOHN. 153 


him. This is also true of the Lord. We are told that “His 
mother kept these things, and pondered them in her heart.” 
It was not hers to make His heavenly descent known even to 
Himself, nor to anticipate God in His revelation of Him to men 
by untimely disclosures, but to give Him such an education in 
ithe ways of God as was possible for her, and to wait quietly till 
the Holy Spirit should awaken in Him the consciousness of His 
mission, and indicate that the time for His Messianic work had 
come. 

It is not, therefore, necessary to believe that either Jesus or 
John knew of the high calling of the other, or even that they 
had any personal acquaintance. Their homes were far removed, 
one dwelling in Galilee, and one in Southern Judea. They may 
have met, but we have no proof of it. We, therefore, find no 
contradiction between John’s words (Matt. iii. 14), “I have need 
to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me?” and his 
words (John i. 34), “I saw, and bare record that this is the 
Son of God.” The knowledge that John had of Jesus before His 
baptism was not as the Messiah, but as a holy man, and one not 
to be classed among those whom he came to call to repentance. 
This knowledge of Him he may have obtained by a previous 
knowledge of His holy life, by the absence of any confession of 
personal sin at His baptism, or by a spiritual perception of His 
holy character given him at the time. (Pressensé, 221, “By a 
divine intuition.”) After His baptism, when John saw the 
Spirit descending upon Him —the divinely appointed sign,— he 
“bare record that this is the Son of God.” 

We may well believe that when Jesus came to be baptized, 
His whole appearance, His demeanor and language, so mani- 
fested His exalted character to the discerning eye of the Bap- 
tist illumined by the Spirit, that he had an immediate presenti- 
ment who He was, and could say to Him: “I have need to be 
baptized of Thee.” Such supernatural discernment of character 
was sometimes given to the old prophets. So Samuel discerned 
the future king in Saul, and afterward in David. (1 Sam. ix. 17; 
xvi. 12. Compare also Luke i. 41, when John, yet a babe in 
his mother’s womb, leaps for joy at the salutation of the Virgin 
Mary.) Still it was not till John had seen the appointed sign, 


qx 


154 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IL 


the descent of the Spirit, that he could bear witness to Jesus as 
the Messiah." 

The placing of the Lord’s baptism, not at the beginnmg but 
during or at the end of His Judean ministry,’ is wholly 
arbitrary. 

Some have inferred from Luke iii. 21, that the descent of the 
Spirit was in the presence of the multitude, and visible to all.* 
But we should rather say, with Edersheim, that Jesus and John 
were alone, or, if not alone, that the vision was to John only. It 
was a sign peculiar to him, for he was to bear witness to others 
who should receive his witness. And thus he says (John i. 
32-34), “I saw the Spirit” — « And I saw, and bare record that 
this is the Son of God.” Others were to believe, not because 
they saw, but because he bare record. ; 


JANUARY — Fepruary, 780. <A. D. 27. 


Immediately after His baptism Jesus is led by the Spirit Marv. iy. 1-11. 
into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil, and continues Mark i. 12, 13. 
there forty days. After the temptations are ended He re- LUKE iy. 1-13. 
turns to the Jordan. Just before His return, John is JOHN i. 19-28. 
visited by a Deputation of priests and Levites from Jerusalem, 
to inquire who he is, and by what authority he baptizes. 

In reply, he announces himself as the forerunner of the 
Messiah. The next day he sees Jesus coming to him, and 
bears witness to Himas the Lamb of God. The day following JOHN i. 29-87. 
he repeats this testimony to his disciples. Two of them fol- 
low Him to His home, and, joined by others soon after, go 
with Him to Galilee. JOHN i. 38-51. 


Whether the Baptist remained during the forty days of the 
temptation in the same place where the Lord was baptized, is in 
question, and has already been spoken of. 

Matthew and Luke differ in the order of the three tempta- 
tions; but on internal grounds, which cannot here be given, 
that of Matthew is to be preferred.* 

That Jesus returned at once from the wilderness to the Jor- 
dan is apparent from the whole order of the narrative. Wiese- 
ler, however (258), makes a period of 5-7 months to have inter- 

1 Meyer, in loco; Ebrard, 259. 2So Pilkington and Whiston. 
3So Meyer. 


4 As to the relation of the fast to the temptations, see Greswell, ii. 206; Williams, 
Nativ., 244. 


Part IT.] TEMPTATION OF JESUS. 155 


vened, during which nothing respecting Him is narrated. This 
is in the highest degree improbable. 

The Synoptists do not mention the visit of the Deputation to 
the Baptist, nor does John mention the temptation, but it is 
generally agreed that the latter preceded the former. 


The temptation seems to have followed immediately upon the 
baptism. The place of the Lord’s temptation was in the wilderness 
of Judea already spoken of, and cannot be more particularly desig- 
nated. Tradition points to a high mountain a little west of Jericho, 
overlooking the plain of the Jordan and beyond, as ‘‘ the exceeding 
high mountain” from which the tempter showed the Lord all the 
kingdoms of the world. This mountain, in allusion to the forty 
days’ fast, was called the Quarantana. Thomson says that ‘‘the 
side facing the plain is as perpendicular, and apparently as high, as 
the rock of Gibraltar, and upon the very summit are still visible the 
ruins of an ancient convent.” Robinson speaks of it as “a perpendi- 
cular wall of rock, 1,200 or 1,500 feet above the plain.” He does not 
think the name or tradition to be older than the crusades, the 
mountain being first mentioned by Saewulf about 1100 A. D., and its 
name a hundred years later. The place of the temptation was 
probably not very far distant from the place of His baptism; and 
those who put this higher up on the Jordan near the Sea of Galilee, 
must find the wilderness on the east or southeast of the sea. (See 
Ellicott, 106; Greswell, ii. 202; Edersheim, i. 300, note.) Stanley 
makes the scene of the temptation to have been on the eastern side 
of the Jordan among the ‘‘desert hills whence Moses had seen the 
view of all the kingdoms of Palestine”; Sepp also puts it on the 
eastern shores of the Dead Sea. But there is greater fitness if we find 
it on the western shores of that sea. As said by Pressensé (230): 
“‘Those denuded rocks, that reddened soil scorched by a burning 
sun, that sulphurous sea stretching like a shroud over the accursed 
cities, all this land of death, mute and motionless as the grave, formed 
a fitting scene for the decisive conflict for the Man of Sorrows.” 


The reputation of the Baptist seems now to have reached its 
culminating point, and attracted the attention of the Pharisees 
and ecclesiastical rulers at Jerusalem. So popular a religious 
reformer could no longer be left unnoticed; and accordingly, 
acting probably in an official manner as the Sanhedrin,’ they 


1S0 Meyer, Wieseler, Godet ; contra,.M. and M., Eders. Tholuck remarks that the 
Sanhedrin was “‘ under special obligation to prevent the appearing of false prophets.” 


156 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IL 


sent a Deputation of priests and Levites to ask him certain 
questions. As he denied that he was “the Christ,” or “ Elias,” 
or “that prophet,” his answers gave them no sufficient ground 
of accusation against him, however much they might have 
sought it. The next day he saw Jesus, apparently now return- 
ing from the temptation, and for the first time pointed Him out 
as He that should come after him, the Lamb of God, and the 
Baptizer with the Holy Ghost. This he could not have done 
till after the baptism, for after it was the sign given, and im- 
mediately after the descent of the Spirit Jesus departed into the 
wilderness. This was, therefore, the first opportunity of the 
Baptist to testify to Him personally as the Christ. His testi- 
mony to Jesus was, up to this time, general. He knew that one 
should come after him, but who, or when, he could not say; and 
this is the character of his witness, as given in the Synoptists. 
But after the baptism he could bear a definite witness. He had 
seen and recognized the Messiah by the divinely appointed sign, 
and could say, This is the man, He is come, He is personally 
present before you. 


Let us consider the order of events. Two points are in dispute: 
Had the Lord been baptized and tempted at the time of the coming 
of the Deputation ? Had He returned from the wilderness to the Jor- 
dan before their coming ? Almost all put the baptism and the tempta- 
tion before they came; but a few invert this order, on the ground 
that John’s words (verse 27), ‘‘He coming after me, is preferred 
before me,” must refer to the revelation of Jesus to John, including the 
testimony at His baptism; and this, therefore, must be put between 
verses 27-29. The Deputation came in the morning, and Jesus was 
baptized in the evening of the same day, and on the next day John 
bore his testimony to the people (verse 29 f. See Baumlein, in loco). 
But the grounds on which this is affirmed are insufficient. 

The second question is not so easily answered. Some say that the 
Lord returned to the Jordan before the Deputation came, on the 
ground that John’s words (verse 26) ‘‘ There standeth one among you 
whom ye know not,” (‘‘In the midst of you standeth one,” R. V.) 
imply that, He was then among those who were listening to John’s 
answer. ‘‘ There He stood unknown and unrecognized amidst the 
throng.” (M. and M., Godet, and others.) But it may be taken 
in a general sense to mean: He has already appeared; He is among 
you, the Jewish people. (So apparently, Meyer, Tholuck.) 


Part II.] JOHN’S TESTIMONY TO JESUS. 157 


This is a point which cannot be positively decided. The order 
of events may have been in one of the two following ways: 
1. Baptism of Jesus. 2. His departure to the wilderness, temptation, 
and return. 3. Visit of the Deputation. 4. John’s witness to it of 
Jesus (verses 19-27). In this case the question arises, Did Jesus hear 
this testimony, standing unknown among those there gathered ? 

1. Baptism. 2. Departure into the wilderness, and tempta- 
tion. 3. Coming of the Deputation, and John’s testimony to it. 4. 
Return of Jesus on the next day. 

The Baptist seems to have borne three distinct testimonies on 
three successive days: 1 (verses 19-27). To the Deputation ; whether 
this was in public and heard by all we do not know. 2 (verses 
29-34). ‘To whom this testimony was borne we are not told, some 
say, to the Deputation; some, to the miscellaneous crowd of the bap- 
tized; some, to a small circle of disciples. If it was to the Deputa- 
tion, they must have taken note of the person of Jesus, and so been 
able to recognize Him again when He appeared to cleanse the temple.' 
3 (verses 35-36). To the two disciples. 

The question here arises, How was the Lord’s baptism in point of 
time related to that of John’s Galilean disciples, Andrew, Simon, 
John? Were they baptized before Him or after? It is commonly 
supposed, before; if so, they must have been with John a considerable 
period ; and this would indicate that they took some part in his 
baptismal work. This is the view of Pressensé (218) that ‘‘ they 
aided him in his ministry, and baptized the multitudes with him.” 
It seems, however, not improbable that the Lord was baptized before 
them, and that they came to John afterward, during His absence in 
the wilderness. This finds some support in the fact that in the men- 
tion of the parts of the land from which people came to John’s bap- 
tism, Galilee is notincluded. Matthew says (iii. 5), ‘‘ Then went out to 
him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan.” 
Mark (i. 5), ‘‘ All the land of Judea and they of Jerusalem.” Luke 
does not say from whence they came, but of the place of his 
ministry (iii. 3): ‘‘He came into all the country about Jordan.” 
This silence about Galilee does not seem to be accidental. May it not 
indicate that the Lord was the first, or among the first, who came 
from that province? and that His baptism was before that of John’s 
Galilean disciples? If so, the order of events would be as follows: 
Jesus comes and is baptized, and departs into the wilderness; 
Andrew, Peter, and others come from Galilee. and are baptized during 


1 As to the view of Origen that there were three different missions from Jerusalem, 
distinguished in verses 19, 21, 25, see Williams’ Wativity, 264. 


158 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. (Part IL 


His absence; upon His return John points Him out to them, and they 
follow Him. 

One of the two disciples to whom John pointed out Jesus as the 
‘Lamb of God,” was Andrew, and there is no doubt that the other 
was the Evangelist John himself; though with the reserve that charac- 
terizes him, he does not mention here or elsewhere in his gospel, 
his own name, or that of his brother, or of his mother. 

‘‘It was about the tenth hour” that the two disciples went with 
Jesus to His abode (verse 39). If we adopt the Jewish computation, 
which divides the period from sunrise to sunset into twelve hours, the 
tenth hour would be that from 3-4 p. m. (Winer, ii. 560). This, how- 
ever, would leave but a brief space for their interyiew, and seems incon- 
sistent with the statement that ‘‘they abode with Him that day.” 
Some, therefore, refer this to the time when Andrew brought his 
brother Simon to Jesus (Licht., 153). All the day had the two disciples 
been with Him, and did not leave Him till the tenth hour. Others say, 
that the two going to Him late in the afternoon remained with Him 
during the night and the next day (Lightfoot). Many, not satisfied 
with these explanations, prefer the Roman computation from mid- 
night, according to which the tenth hour would be from 9-10 a. m., 
and thus the disciples had the whole day for their interview. As 
the notes of time in John are important, his mode of computing the 
hours must be considered. 

The beginning of a day may be counted from different points, 
from sunrise, from sunset, from noon, from midnight. The Jews com- 
puted their day from sunset to sunset, or from evening to evening — 
vuxOjpyepov, —night-day,— and this period was divided into night, 
from sunset to sunrise, and day, from sunrise to sunset. (John xi. 9; 
Matthew xx. 3-6.) The Babylonians are said to have computed from 
sunrise to sunrise, and the Romans from midnight to midnight, as do 
we. Did the Jews in the Lord’s day use this Roman mode? As is 
obyious, much confusion arises from the indefiniteness of terms. 
The term ‘‘day,” when applied to mark the period of one revolution 
of the earth on its axis, is sufficiently definite, since a certain fixed 
point must be taken — sunrise, or noon, or other—as the beginning 
of the revolution. But the division of this day into twenty-four 
hours is artificial, and is said to have been taken by the Jews from the 
Babylonians during their captivity. 

Besides this day of 24 hours there is the natural day from 
sunrise to sunset, which, being variable, the hours into which 
it is divided are correspondingly variable, the shortest being 49, and 
the longest 71 minutes in that latitude. 


Part II.] JOHN’S DISCIPLES AND JESUS. 159 


Haying thus one term applied both to the period of 24 hours and 
to the period from sunrise to sunset, and the last being divided into 12 
hours of variable length, confusion may easily arise as to the exact time 
ofevents. The natural day regarded as the time of light is the time for 
human labor; but this period is not strictly defined by the moment of 
sunrise and sunset so that labor must then begin and then cease. 
In common usage, the term day would not be thus exactly defined, 
but would embrace the time of labor, be it longer or shorter. Another 
element also comes in, which adds to the indefiniteness of the term. 
We connect night not only with darkness, but with sleep, and the day 
may be supposed to continue till the usual hour of sleep comes. 

In the case before us, ‘‘ the disciples went to Jesus about the tenth 
hour, and abode with Him that day.” If we accept the Jewish reck- 
oning, that this tenth hour was from three to four in the afternoon, 
it does not, therefore, follow that they left Him just at sundown, 
when the day ended; they may have remained much later, and thus 
have had three or four hours for their interview. 

The point is of interest only as regards John’s gospel, as it is ad- 
mitted that the Synoptists use the Jewish computation, and import- 
ant here mainly as bearing on the time of the crucifixion (John xix. 
14). It is not easy to decide with any positiveness. Those who ad- 
vocate Roman time fird that this best suits the various passages in 
which the hours are specified by this Evangelist. (See the following: 
iv. 6, 52; xi.9; xix. 1,4, which will each be examined in their order.) 
It is said by Wieseler (Syn. 410 f.) that at Ephesus where John lived 
and wrote, the Roman mode of computation was in use.1 (So M. and 
M., i loco; McClellan, 741; but this is questioned by some. See 
Farrar.) 

Greswell (ii. 216) admits that the Jewish and Roman modes of 
computation were alike, the Romans reckoning the civil day from 
sunrise to sunset, but supposes John to have used the modern count- 
ing of the hours—from midnight to noon, and noon to midnight. 
(See, as to Roman usage, Becker’s Gallus, 315; Pauly, Real Encyc., ii. 
1017; Wies., Beitrage, 252.) 

The finding of Simon (verse 41) by his brother Andrew, and 
his coming to Jesus, was upon the same day spoken of (verse 35). 
It is probable, from the form of expression, “He first findeth 
his own brother Simon,” that as Andrew brought his brother 
Simon to the Lord, so John also brought his brother James.? 


1 For the Roman computation, Ewald, 248, note 2; Westcott, Eders., i. 8346, note 5: 
M. and M., Ebrard, 389; Tholuck; for the Jewish, Meyer, Rob., Godet, Alford, Caspari, 
Watkins, McClellan, Farrar. 

2 Meyer, Lichtenstein. 


£60 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IL 


But Alford explains it as “implying that both disciples went 
together to seek Simon, but that Andrew found him first.” 

The next day (verse 43) Jesus departs to Galilee. There 
seems no good reason to doubt that He was accompanied by 
Simon and Andrew and John, who had recognized in Him the 
Messiah. Some, however, suppose that they remained with the 
Baptist, and did not join Jesus till a much later period.’ This is 
intrinsically improbable. Whether Philip was called by the 
Lord before His departure, or upon His way, is doubtful? Nor 
is it certain that the calling of Philip was founded upon a pre- 
vious acquaintance with the Lord, though the term “find” 
implies this ; it may have been through the agency of Simon 
and Andrew, who were of the same city (verse 44). Philip 
now brings to the Lord another disciple. Where he found 
Nathanael is not said, but most probably upon the journey. 


FEBRUARY — APRIL, 780. A. D. 27. 


Going to Cana of Galilee, the Lord at a marriage feast JOHN ii. 1-11. 
there changes waterinto wine. Afterwards, He goes down 
with His mother, and brethren, and disciples, to Capernaum, JOHN ii. 12, 13, 
but remains there only a few days as the Passover is at 
hand. From Capernaum He goes up to Jerusalem to attend 
this feast. 


«“ And the third day there was a marriage” (verse 1). It is 
disputed from what point of time this third day is to be reck- 
oned. Some would make it the third day after His arrival in 
Galilee ;* others, as Alford, the third day from the calling of 
Nathanael, but one day intervening; and others, as Lange, 
identify it with the day last mentioned (verse 43). Blunt * sup- 
poses the Evangelist to have some event in his mind from which 
he dates, but which he does not mention. But most count from 
the day of the departure to Galilee (verse 43).° 

The order of events may be thus given, John i. 19—1ii. 1. 

1st day. Visit of Deputation and John’s testimony to them 
(verses 19-27). 

1 So author of ‘‘ The Messiah,” 73. 

2 For the former, Meyer, Alford ; for the latter, Tholuck, M. and M. 

8 So Friedlieb, Leben Jesu, 189; Trench, Mir., 83. 


¢ Script. Coincidences, 261. 
3 So Robinson, Meyer, Lichtenstein, Ellicott, M. and M. 


Part IT.] THE MARRIAGE AT CANA. 161 


2d. Jesus returns to John, who bears a second witness (verses 
29-34). 

8d. The two disciples visit Jesus (verses 35-42). 

4th. He begins his journey to Cana (verse 43). 

5th. On the way. 

6th. Onthe way. Reaches Cana. 

7th. At Cana. The marriage (ii. 1). 

We give the following variations: 

Luthardt — 

ist, 2d, and 3d days, same as before. 

4th. Simon brought to Him (verses 41-42). 

5th. Philip and Nathanael brought (verses 43-45). 

6th. Departs for Cana. 

7th. Arrives at Cana. 

8th. The marriage. 

Thus the Lord’s ministry begins as it ends, with seven days whose 
events are specifically mentioned. 

Godet — 

1st, 2d, and 3d days, as before. 

4th. Departs for Cana, meets Philip on the way (verse 48). 

5th. Meets Nathanael (verses 45-47). 

6th. Arrives at Cana. 

7th. The marriage. 

Edersheim (i. 344) assumes that the marriage in Cana was of a 
maiden, not of a widow, and if so, that the marriage was on a Wed- 
nesday. With this assumption, we have the following order of days: 

1st, Thursday. Visit of Deputation. 

2d, Friday. Jesus returns. 

3d, Sabbath. The two disciples meet Him. 

4th, Sunday. Departs for Cana. 

5th, Monday. On the way. 

6th, Tuesday. Reaches Cana. 

7th, Wednesday. The Marriage. 

Caspari, (115,) counts ‘‘ the third day,” or day of the marriage, 
from the day when the two disciples visited Jesus (verse 35). The 
next day He called Philip and Nathanael. The third day He went 
to Cana, a distance, according to Caspari, of only twenty-two miles. 
This supposes Bethabara to have been high up on the Jordan. 


Whether the Lord passed through Nazareth on His way to 
Cana, depends upon the position of Cana; if at Kana el Jelil, He 
would reach Nazareth first. Ewald supposes that the family of 
Joseph had at this time left Nazareth, and were already settled 


162 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part 11 


at Cana.’ But it seems conclusive against this that Philip should 
speak to Nathanael of Jesus as Jesus of Nazareth (John i, 45), 
and that Nathanael, who was of Cana, should know nothing of 
Him. The mother of Jesus seems to have been intimate in the 
family where the wedding took place, from which it has been in- 
ferred that she was a relative of one of the parties. One tradi- 
tion makes Alpheus and Mary, the sister of the Lord’s mother, to 
have resided at Cana, and the marriage to have been that of one 
of their sons. According to Greswell, it was the marriage of 
Alpheus and Mary themselves. Another tradition, current 
among the Mohammedans, and maintained by some in the 
Church, makes John the apostle to have been the bridegroom; 
another, that the bridegroom was Simon the Canaanite, the lat- 
ter epithet being a designation of his residence, not of his 
party. As no allusion is made to Joseph, the most obvious 
inference is that he was already dead. From the fact that His 
disciples were invited with the Lord, it would appear that they 
were friends of the married pair, or that they were present as 
friends of Jesus. It is not certain that all the disciples are here 
included; perhaps only Philip and Nathanael went with Him.’ 
Some, however, find in the six water pots an allusion to the Lord 
and His five disciples.* 


The marriage took place at ‘‘Cana of Galilee.” The name signi- 
fies, in Hebrew, a ‘‘ place of reeds,” and is used in the Old Tes 
tament as the name of a stream on the borders of Ephraim and 
Manasseh (Josh. xvi. 8), and of a city in Asher (Josh. xix. 28). 
With this city of Asher Greswell identifies the Cana of the Gospels. 
The addition ‘‘of Galilee” here seems designed to distinguish it 
from some other Cana. There are now two Canas in Galilee; one, 
Kana el Jelil, north, and the other, Kefr Kenna, northeast of Naza- 
reth, and it is disputed which is meant. Robinson (ii. 347) shows 
that upon etymological grounds the former is to be preferred, 
the present Arabic name Kana el Jelil being identical with Cana of 
Galilee, while Kefr Kenna ‘‘can only be twisted by force into a like 
shape.” He shows also that the former was by early tradition pointed 
out as the true site of the miracle, and that only since the sixteenth 
century, and for the convenience of monks and travellers, was the 
latter selected. This view of Robinson has found much acceptance.* 


1 So Stanley, 359, note; Weiss. 2 Trench, Mir., 84. 3 See Luthardt, i. 77 
# So Winer, Raumer, Ritter, Meyer, Porter, Van de Velde, Sepp. Socin. 





Part II.] SITE OF CANA OF GALILEE. 163 


De Saulcy, however (ii. 376), maintains the claims of Kefr Kenna, 
affirming that the present name of Kana el Jelil does not mean Cana 
of Galilee, but Cana the great, or illustrious. He also objects that 
this village is too far from Nazareth, and in the wrong direction, to 
apswer to the narrative.’ Stanley speaks of the claims of the two 
Canas as “being about equally balanced.” Thomson speaks hesitat- 
ingly. Making inquiries, when in the neighborhood, of all he met, 
where the water was made wine, ‘‘ with one consent they pointed to 
Kefr Kenna. Some of them knew of a ruin called Kanna on the north 
side of the great plain of Buttauf, but only one had ever heard of the 
word ‘Jelil’ as a part of the name, and from hesitancy with which 
this one admitted it, I was left in doubt whether he did not merely 
acquiesce in it at my suggestion. It is certain that very few, even of 
the Moslems, know the full name of Kana el Jelil; and yet I think 
Dr. Robinson has about settled the question in its favor.” Osborne 
says that at Kefr Kenna he inquired its name of his guides and Arabs, 
who said it was also called Kenna el Jelil. Also one of the natives 
called it Jelil. He considered it, however, a new name, devised to 
preserve the character of the place as Cana of Galilee. It is said 
by Zeller (Qt. St., 1869, 71) that the name of Kana el Jelil is known 
only since Robinson’s discovery; the Arabs know it only by the 
name of Khurbet Kana; and that the Christians of Palestine never 
doubted the identity of Kefr Kenna with the Cana of the Gospels. 
Some think ‘‘Galilee” was added by the Evangelist in order to lay 
stress upon the province. It was in Galilee, not in Judea, where the 
miracle took place. (M. and M.) 

Kana el Jelil lies 12 or 15 miles north of Nazareth, on the south- 
ern declivity of a hill that overlooks the plain El Bittauf. According 
to Robinson: ‘‘The situation is fine. It was once a considerable vil- 
lage of well-built houses, now deserted. Many of the dwellings are 
in ruins; we could discover no traces of antiquity.” Thomson says 
that there is not now a habitable house in the village, though some 
of them may have been inhabited within the last fifty years. There 
are many ancient cisterns about it, and fragments of water-jars in 
abundance, not, however, of stone, but of baked earth. Not only 
is the village deserted, but the near neighborhood is so wild that it 
is the favorite hunting ground for the inhabitants of Kefr Kenna. 

Kefr Kenna lies about 4 miles northeast of Nazareth, in a small 
valley upon the border of a plain. At the entrance of the village isa 
fountain made out of an ancient sarcophagus, which the inhabitants 


1 See Robinson’s Reply, iii. 108, note. Ewald, Christus, 170, note, decides against 
De Saulcy 


164 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IL 


show as the fountain from which the water-pots were filled. A 
Greek church is built upon the site of the miracle, but is a modern 
structure. In this church are shown two enormous stone vases, as 
two of the six water-pots. De Saulcy maintains that they are as old 
as the period at which the miracle took place. There are some ruins 
apparently ancient, and among them is shown the house of Simon the 
Canaanite. 

The village is thus described by a recent traveller (Prof. Stevens, 
S. 8S. Times, Feb. 7, 1885): ‘‘ From abroad ridge we descended intoa 
valley green with orchards and planted grain; and beyond it at the 
foot of a long slope lies Kefr Kenna, where is a copious spring. 
Groves of fruit trees fill in the foreground of the valley. Ruins that 
bear the name Kenna are found a half mile or more to the northwest, 
a still earlier site, it would seem, of the village.” 

The question has some importance from its bearing on the length 
of the Lord’s journey from Bethabara to Cana, and so on the position 
of Bethabara. If the marriage was at Kana el Jelil, it would lengthen 
the distance some eleven miles, or, according to Conder, some eight 
miles, and make more time necessary than the narrative implies 
(see Pict. Pal., 300). There is also no mention by the Evangelists of 
the Lord’s ever having been at Sepphoris, lying six miles south of Kana 
el Jelil, through which He must often have passed had Cana been 
there. The mention of Cana in Josephus (Life, 16; War, i. 17. 5), 
points to Kefr Kenna, as Kana el Jelil would have been out of his way. 
The question cannot be considered as finally settled, but the words of 
Tristram have much force: ‘‘The modern name, Kana el Jelil, is 
closer to the ancient; yet the proximity of Kefr Kenna to Nazareth, 


and the fact of its being on the direct road between Nazareth and - 


Gennesareth, seem to me to far outweigh the claims of the northern and 
more remote site.” Many of the more recent explorers and writers 
are disposed to accept Kefr Kenna as the Cana of the miracle. (So 
Zeller, Tristram, Godet, Eders., Farrar, Dixon, see Qt. St. 1878, 67; 
Qt. St. 1883, 43.) 


The marriage féstivities among the Jews usually continued 
six or seven days, and it is not certain upon which of these 
days the miracle was wrought, but probably toward the last. 
At their expiration Jesus went with His mother and brethren 
and disciples to Capernaum. The occasion of this journey is not 
mentioned; probably, because He was invited by Peter and 
Andrew, who seem now to have resided there. Wieseler (Syn. 
169, note) thinks that the family had already left Nazareth, and 


Part IT.] THE VISIT AT CAPERNAUM. 165 


settled at Capernaum, or now did so. (So Tholuck, Ewald.) 
Friedlieb (191) suggests that, as the Passover was now not dis- 
tant, they might have desired to join a party of pilgrims going 
up to the feast from that city. Pressensé infers from Luke iv. 
23, that He must have wrought some miracles there at this 
time, and Godet places at this time the miraculous draught of 
fishes, and the calling of the four disciples (Luke v. 1 ff.). But 
the fact that He did not remain there many days, is mentioned 
as indicating that His public ministry had not yet begun. There 
is no intimation that He taught, or made any public manifesta- 
tion of Himself while at Capernaum. Weiss (i. 386) says: “It 
is incomprehensible how, not only the beginning of Jesus’ public 
ministry, but also the calling of the disciples, should be placed 
in these ‘not many days.’” Almost all harmonists agree in this, 
that His public work in Galilee did not begin till a later period. 
Probably His time was spent in private intercourse with His 
disciples. Lightfoot (iii. 44), who makes four months to inter- 
vene between the temptation and the first Passover, supposes 
Him to have spent this interval in a ‘ perambulation of Galilee.” 
Of this there is no hint in the narrative. As the Passover drew 
nigh, He went up to Jerusalem. Whether the disciples accom- 
panied Him is not stated; but as they would naturally attend 
the feast, and as afterward they are found with Him (John i. 
22), we infer that they did so. 


PART III. 


THE JUDZAN MINISTRY. 


The cleansing of the Temple may be regarded as the first 
step in the Lord’s Judean work, the first public manifestation 
of Himself before the rulers and the people. All that He had 
done since His baptism to this time was in its nature prepara- 
tory; one miracle He had wrought at Cana, but it was in a small 
family circle, and there is no likelihood that it had been heard of 
at Jerusalem ; it was not for the people at large, but for His 
little body of believers. 

It is ever to be kept in mind that the Lord was the 
Messiah, and it is this Messianic relation to the nation that de- 
termines the character of the first stage of His ministry. Had he 
come simply as a teacher or a prophet, He would not have waited 
for any national acceptance, but would, like the Baptist, have 
entered at once upon His work. But He came to do the work 
of the Messiah, not that of a simple teacher or prophet. The 
Tulers were to recognize in Him the Son of David, the King, 
the Representative of God in His theocratic administration, 
whom all were to honor and obey (Matt. xxi. 37). Whether He 
knew, when He began His ministry, that the rulers would reject 
Him, we cannot say ; but even if this was known to Him, His 
first act must be to present Himself to them, that their feelings 
toward Him might be publicly expressed. Till this was done, 
and His rejection made morally certain, He could not begin His 
work of gathering disciples, and of separating them from the dis- 
believing with reference to the founding of His church. What 
was due at this stage, was to give sufficient proof by word and 
work that He was sent of God, their Messiah; then it was for 
the nation in its representatives to seek Him out, and be taught 
of Him how the purpose of God in Him was to be fulfilled. 

(167) 


168 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part 111 


That the rulers had the right, and, indeed, were in duty 
bound to demand proof of His Messianic claims, the Lord Himself 
declared (John v. 31). This proof was threefold. 1. The testi- 
mony of the Baptist (John v. 33). This was to the Deputation sent 
from Jerusalem to inquire as to his authority to institute such 
a rite, and what was the meaning of it ; and his answers to their 
questions could not leave them in doubt that he believed the 
Messiah to have already come. 

2. The testimony of the Father from whom He received 
power to do His works (John v. 36). Thus Nicodemus said, 
“No man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be 
with him.” 

3. ‘The prophetic testimony given to Him in the Scriptures : 
“They are they which testify of me” (verse 39). To these may 
be added the truth of His words, the conformity of His teachings 
to all that God had revealed in the Law and the prophets. 

The first public act of the Lord —the cleansing of the tem- 
ple— was not so much in proof of His Messianic claims, as an 
assertion of them. It was an act that had a twofold bearing; 
on the one side it asserted His prerogative as the Son to preserve 
in purity the worship appointed of His Father, and on the other 
it was a severe rebuke to the priests and rulers. They had 
desecrated and defiled the holy House. He will reassert its 
sanctity and purify it. This act, done at the most solemn and 
generally attended of all the feasts, and before the assembled 
multitudes, did not leave any in ignorance that one had come 
with higher claims, at least, than belonged to a teacher, or even to 
a prophet. 

The proof that He gave at this feast of His Divine mission 
was in the miracles which He wrought. ‘Many believed in 
His name when they saw the miracles which He did.” (R. V., 
“signs.”) Itisnot said of what nature were these signs, or how 
many; they were such as it pleased Him to give, and were suf- 
ficient to convince all willing to be convinced that He came from 
God, and to prepare them to hear His words of truth. But the 
faith begotten by the mere signs did not rest on that sense of 
spiritual need and perception of spiritual truth which alone give 
a solid and permanent basis oi discipleship, end therefore He 
could not trust Himself to them (verses 23-25). 


Part IIT.] THE JUDHAN MINISTRY. 169 


As none of the rulers or leaders acknowledge Him, or, per- 
haps, seek Him out, except the doubting Nicodemus, He leaves 
the city, and begins somewhere in the province the work of bap- 
tizing. This work He performed by the hands of His disciples. 
All this is in harmony with His position as one waiting for the 
recognition of the nation. In all that He does during this period, 
there is no act looking forward to the abrogation of the Mosaic 
institutions, and to the formation of a church on a new founda- 
tion. He does not, so far we know, go about preaching in the 
synagogues. He works no new miracles. Although assisted in 
His baptismal work by the few who early discerned in Him the 
Messiah, He seems to have organized no body of disciples. and 
to have done nothing that indicated a purpose to gather out a 
few from the nation at large. It was not for Him at this early 
stage to take any step that pointed to His rejection by the na- 
tion. It was the time of their trial, and their treatment of Him 
would indicate what His future acts should be. The whole 
Judean ministry was an appeal to the people, and primarily to 
the rulers, to receive Him as the Messiah. 


Passover, APRIL 11-17, 780. A.D. 27. 


At this feast Jesus with a scourge drives out of the temple 
the sellers of animals for sacrifice, and the money-changers. To JOuN ii. 14-22. 
the Jews, demanding His authority to do such things, He re- 
plies in a parable. During the feast He works miracles. JOHN ii. 23-25. 
which lead many tobelieve on Him. He is visitedat night by JOHN iii. 1-21. 
Nicodemus, to whom he explains the nature of thenew birth. JOHN iii. 22. 
Afterward He departs from Jerusalem into the land of Judea, 
where He tarries with His disciples, and they baptize. JOEN iy. 2. 


This Passover, according to Greswell and Lewin, was on the 
9th April, to McClellan, the 10th. Friedlieb makes it to have 
been on the 11th. We follow the latter. If the Lord’s bap- 
tism was, as we have supposed, early in January, between the 
baptism and the Passover was an interval of some three months.’ 
The exact length of this interval depends, of course, upon the 
date of the baptism. With this Passover His public ministry 


may properly be said to begin. 
This purification of the temple is plainly a different one to 





1 Paschale Chronicon, 76 days; Friedlieb, 87 days; Greswell, 64 days. 
3 


170 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part ILL 


that mentioned by the Synoptists (Matt. xxi. 12-16; Mark xi. 
15-19; Luke xix. 45-48). This occurred at the beginning, 
that at the end, of His ministry. The act, in all its essential 
outward features, must have been the same; but its significance 
varied with the time. The point of its repetition will be con- 
sidered when the synoptical account comes before us. As now 
performed, it was a plain and open avowal of His Divine au- 
thority, and a public reproof of the wickedness of the priests and 
rulers who permitted His Father’s house to be made a house of 
merchandise. Nothing could have brought Him more publicly 
before the ecclesiastical authorities and the multitudes who 
thronged to the feast, than this act, nor have shown more 
distinctly the nature and extent of His claims. Although He 
does not name Himself the Messiah, He could not be classed as 
a reformer of ecclesiastical abuses merely. He was the Son of 
God, jealous of His Father’s honor, and to whom it especially 
belonged to see that His courts were not defiled. It is said by 
Edersheim (i. 38): “ With this first bold purgation of the temple, 
a deadly feud between Jesus and the Jewish authorities had 
begun.” 

As the chief sacrifice, that of the Paschal Lamb, was offered 
on the first day of the feast, it is probable that this purification 
took place before that day. Although the act must have drawn 
to Him popular attention, and awakened general inquiry who He 
was, no hostile measures seem to have been taken at this time by 
the Jewish authorities. They asked for a sign (ii. 18) as a 
voucher for His Divine commission, which He declined to give, 
and answered them inan enigmatical manner. Still He wrought 
afterward during the feast miracles which caused many to be- 
lieve in Him. Of the nature of these miracles nothing is said; 
probably they were miracles of healing. But their faith resting 
merely upon the exhibitions of power which they saw, not upon 
any perceptions of the moral character of His works, He did not 
commit Himself to them, or enter into any intimate relations with 
them, as with His disciples from Galilee. But in Nicodemus, 
whom Lightfoot calls “one of the judges of the great San- 
hedrin,” — dpywy — and Godet, “one of the lay members,” 
He found one in whom were the germs of a true faith, and to 


Part LIL. [ CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE. 171 


whom He could reveal Himself not only through work but 
through word. The subject of His teaching was the nature of 
the kingdom of God, and how men were to enter into it. This 
conception of the kingdom, involving the gift of a new life from 
the Messiah as the second Adam, was one that the Lord could 
not then fully unfold, but which lies as the source of all His sub- 
sequent teachings. That Nicodemus should come secretly by 
night shows that there was, even now, among the priests and 
rulers with whom he had most intercourse, a feeling of dislike to 
Jesus, and that some degree of odium attached to all who were 
known to visit Him. Some infer from the plural, “ We know,” 
that Nicodemus came as the representative of others in the San- 
hedrin. If John, the Evangelist, had a house in the city, as 
some think, the conversation may have been in his presence. 

After the feast was over, Jesus leaving the city, went into 
some part of the territory adjacent, and began to baptize. Here 
several questions meet us: How early did His baptismal work 
begin ? How long did it continue? Where was it carried on? 
What was its significance ? 

When did it begin? The only mark of time we have 
is in the words, “after these things,’/—pera tavta— after 
the events of the Passover (John iii. 22). This phrase, 
according to the Evangelist’s usage, permits a considerable 
interval of time to have elapsed. “The sequence is not 
immediate ;” (Alford, i loco, see v. 1; vi. 1; vil. 1.) If 
we suppose an interval of some weeks between the Passover 
and the beginning of His baptismal work, how and where 
was the time spent? According to Lichtenstein (157), He 
now returned to Galilee with His relatives and disciples, and 
lived there in retirement till the late autumn—from April 
to October, —the disciples going to their own homes. At this 
time He reassembled them, and going into Judza, began to bap- 
tize. There is, perhaps, in this nothing intrinsically improbable, 
but there are no indications in the narrative of such a return to 
Galilee, and no convincing arguments for it. The impression 
made by the Hvangelist’s statement is that the Lord remained 
at Jerusalem or in its neighborhood for a time, longer or shorter, 
_after the Passover, and then, going to some place He had 
selected in “the land of Judea” — the country as distinguished 


172 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IIL 


from the city — began there to baptize. This was sometime 
in the early summer of 780; more definitely, we cannot speak. 

How long did His baptism continue? The only datum we 
have is the word of the Lord after His baptismal work had 
ceased, and while in Samaria on His way to Galilee: “There 
are yet four months, and then cometh the harvest.” This saying, 
which will be considered later, has been understood by some as 
showing that the harvest was already ripe, and the time, therefore, 
May; by others, that four months must pass before the harvest 
began, and the time, therefore, December. If we take the for- 
mer date, His baptism, if begun immediately after the feast, con- 
tinued only some four or five weeks; if the latter, it continued till 
December, several months. That it was brief. 1t is said, appears 
from the manner in which one of John’s disciples speaks (John iii. 
26): ** Behold the same baptizeth, and all come to Him,” as if His 
baptism had but recently begun. But it isnot the announcement 
of the fact that He baptized as if it were a new thing, that is 
emphatic, since what follows — “all come to Him,”— clearly im- 
plies some considerable period of activity. The complaint is that 
He, to whom John had borne witness, should also baptize. ‘He 
baptizeth,” as if becoming John’s rival.’ 

Where was this work carried on? All agree that it was 
somewhere in the province of Juda. Some suppose Him to 
have gone to the Jordan, or to some stream running into it. 
(So Friedlieb, Thomson, Weiss.) Others think that He was not 
confined to one place, but went from place to place, baptizing 
wherever He found water; and that He visited in southern 
Judza, Hebron, and the chief cities, going as far south as 
Beersheba. (So Sepp, Godet) Others infer from the words 
(John iv. 4), “And He must needs go through Samaria,” that 
He went at this time into the northern part of Judea. (So 
Meyer.) He may have been at Wady Farah, some six miles north- 
east of Jerusalem, where is abundance of water. (Baed., 322. 
This wady will soon be spoken of again.) It is more in harmony 


1 Opinions vary much as to the length of the Lord’s work in baptizing: Norton, two or 
three weeks; Greswell, less than a month; McClellan, Caspari, five weeks; Weiss, seven 
months; Godet, eight months. Greswell (ii. 215) thinks the statement that there was 
much water there, ‘“‘a proof that the rainy season had been some time over, and water was 
beginning to be scarce,” thus showing that it was near mid-summer. Little reliance 
can be placed on this. 


Part II1.] SITE OF NON. 173 


with the general scope of His Judzan ministry that He should 
have continued in the neighborhood of the city, but the place 
where He baptized cannot be determined. While Jesus was 
baptizing, John was also carrying on his baptismal work. He 
had, however, left the Jordan— whether before or after the 
Passover we do not know—and had gone to Mnon. Let us 
inquire here where it is to be found. 


non — Alvjvy —is by some regarded as a Chaldaic plural, meaning 
“ fountains” (T. G. Lex., sub voce), and by some as a compound, 
“‘dove-fountain ” (so Meyer). It is doubtful whether it denotes here 
a district, or a village in which were springs (Lightfoot), or a foun- 
tain near a village. In any case its position is defined by saying that 
it was ‘‘near to Salim.” But this helps us little, since the place of 
this Salim is also undetermined. Jerome speaks of a town called in 
his day Salem, eight Roman miles south of Scythopolis or Bethshean, 
where the ruins of a palace of Melchizedek were shown. He also 
speaks of a Salumias, which he apparently identifies with Salem, as 
lying in the plain or valley of the Jordan. Here he places Anon, 
near to Salem and tothe Jordan. (Raumer, 142; so Edersheim, i. 393; 
Caspari, 122; Ebrard, 313.) Here, at the base of a hill at the side of 
a beautiful spring, is a saint’s tomb, to which the natives have given 
the name of Sheik Salim (Van der Velde, Mem., 345). But Robinson, 
who made special search for Salim in the Jordan valley, found no 
ruins, and no trace of the name. He considers this name as too fre- 
quent to be taken into account, and regards the search for Salim here 
as fruitless (iii. 298. See Drake, Qt. St. 1875, 82; 1874, 91). Itis 
rightly objected by Stevens that an Ainon here is too near the Jor- 
dan (Jour. Bibl. Lit. and Ex. 1883, p. 130). 

Another Salim is found a few miles east of Nablous, and some 
miles north from this Salim a ruined village called A‘non, which is 
believed by many to be the same place mentioned by the Evangelist, 
because of copious springs of water near it on the Wady Far’ah. All 
travellers agree in praising the beauty and fruitfulness of this valley, 
through which a permanent stream runs to the Jordan, and in which 
are many broad meadows, expansions well fitted for the accommoda- 
tion of such as might come to be baptized. Robinson says: ‘‘ No- 
where in Palestine had I seen such noble brooks of water” (iii. 305; 
see Stevens, 134). 

It is here in this valley that many moderns find the place of 
John’s baptism (Tristram, Conder, McGarvey, Stevens, Porter, Wilson, 
Schaff, Henderson). But to this there are two objections; one is the 


174 _ THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IIL 


distance of the ruin 4inon from Salem some seven miles, and from 
Wady Far’ah some four miles. (Conder, H. B.) Of Anon, Rob- 
inson says: ‘‘ Here is precisely the name, but unfortunately there is 
no Salem near, nor a drop of water.” Stevens (198), who defends 
this site, feels the force of this objection,and suggests a modern trans- 
fer from some earlier site. Another objection is, that it makes John 
to have been baptizing in Samaria. It is difficult to believe that 
John, the preacher of the Law, could have entered Samaritan terri- 
tory for any such purpose, when, at a later period, the Lord forbade 
the Twelve to enter into any of its cities (Matt. x. 5; xv. 24). It 
was not to be expected that the Jews would follow John there, nor 
would the Samaritans accept baptism at his hands. It is said by 
Weiss, “It is perfectly impossible that John can have taken up his 
station in Samaria” (John iv. 9; Luke xvii. 18). Nor is there any 
trace in the conversation of the Samaritan woman or of her people 
with the Lord, that there had been any such ministry among them. 
On these grounds it is said by Meyer in loco: ‘‘ Anon must have been 
in Judea, not in Samaria.” (So Wieseler, Luthardt, Godet, Eders- 
heim, McClellan. As to the relation of the Jews to the Samaritans, 
see Edersheim, 398; Hamburger, Talmud, 1068). The reasoning of 
Stevens on this point is not satisfactory. If the Baptist had no 
special mission ‘to the Samaritans, as he most plainly had not, why 
go to Samaria where the Jews, to whom he had a special mission, 
would not follow him? That the Lord crossed Samaria on His way 
to and from Galilee to Jerusalem on one occasion, and spent two 
days there teaching, does not show that the work of the Baptist was 
among them. 

If we cannot find Anon in either of the two places already named, 
we must look for it in some other direction. Was it east of the Jor- 
dan, or somewhere in the interior of Judxa? That it was not east of 
the Jordan, appears from John iii. 26: ‘‘ He that was with thee beyond 
Jordan,” thus contrasting Anon with his former place of baptism 
at Bethabara, and implying that John was now on the west side. 
That he was not in the valley of the Jordan, and near the river, 
appears from the description, ‘‘ because there was much water” — 
many springs— which, in that case, would have been superfluous. 
Weiss, i. 34, supposes a contrast meant between the land of Judea 
and Anon, vs. 22-23 as if the latter were not in Juda; but this is 
forcing the passage. The contrast is not local, but personal. Some 
would find Anon in Southern Judea. Wieseler (Syn. 248), refers to 
Joshua, xv. 32, where among the cities of Judah on the borders 
of Edom, mention is made of Shilhim, Ain, and Rimmon. (See 


EE 


Part III.] SITE OF NON. 175 


Riehm under Ain.) Ain and Rimmon being places near each other, 
were in time blended as one under the name En-Rimmon, now 
known by the name er Rumamim, about twelve miles north of 
Beersheba (Tristram, B. P. 26; Conder, H. B., so Godet, Pressensé). 
Lichtenstein finds non in Wady el Khulil, a little northwest 
of Hebron; Sepp, in Beit non a little north of Hebron; Ewald, 
in the southeast of Judza; Luthardt, in south Judea; Light- 
foot, ‘‘near the Essenes in the Judsean wilderness.” To all these 
sites in Southern Judwa the general objection is made, that as 
John was not long after arrested by Herod, he must have been bap- 
tizing somewhere in the north, and in or near Galilee, and so brought 
under his jurisdiction, and that here Anon must be sought.’ Bar- 
clay finds it in Wady Farah, six miles northeast of Jerusalem, of 
which he speaks as having the most copious fountains to be found in 
the neighborhood of Jerusalem, one of them being capable of driving 
several mills as it gushes forth from the earth; but it is intermittent. 
Below, the stream is called the Kelt, emptying into the Jordan by 
Jericho. Baedeker mentions Wady Farah as ‘‘ beautifully green, 
and containing excellent springs.” But others find Barclay’s account 
of the copiousness of the waters exaggerated. (So Stevens.) This 
site has not found much acceptance. Dixon (Qt. St. 1877) puts 
Enon on a road from Jericho to Jerusalem. That John was within 
the territory of Herod when arrested, does not show that he was not 
at this earlier time engaged in baptizing somewhere in Judea. If the 
Lord’s work was now limited to Judea, on grounds already stated, it 
was fitting that John should have carried on his work in His vicinity, 
and that is implied in the narrative. So M. and M.: ‘‘ #non and 
Salem were in Judza, so that Jesus and the Baptist were at this time 
in the same region of the country.” Whether, when the Lord ceased 
to baptize and went into Galilee, John ceased his work in Judea, 
and was in Galilee at the time of his arrest some months later, will be 
considered in its order. 

Among so many discordant opinions, the true site of non must 
be left undecided. Most agree in placing it on the west side of the 
Jordan, as it is contrasted (verse 26) with John’s former place of bap- 
tism at Bethabara. We best meet the scope of the narrative if we 
suppose that Jesus and John were not very far distant from each 
other, and both in Judea. 


1 So Lightfoot, Friedlieb, and Edersheim, but they are not agreed as to the place. 
Friedlieb (178) accepting the statement of Jerome, places Aunon in Perea or Galilee; 
Edersheim (i. 393) thinks this most probable. But as some interval of time may have 
elapsed between the cessation of his baptism at Anon and his arrest, the argument has 
little force. 


176 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IL 


We have still to ask what was the significance of the Lord’s bap- 
tism ? 

With the coming of Jesus to enter upon His work, it might have 
been supposed that the mission of the Baptist would cease, its end 
being accomplished, As we have seen, however, it did not wholly 
cease, for he had not brought the nation to repentance; but it changed 
its form. And it is probably from this point of view that we are to 
explain the departure of John from the Jordan to Anon. And as 
the place of baptism was changed, so also in some degree the rite. 
His baptism could no more have a general and indefinite reference to 
one still to come. (See Acts xix. 4, ‘‘Saying unto the people that 
they should believe on Him which should come after him.”) Having 
declared Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah, the undetined Messianic 
hopes of the nation were now to be concentrated upon Him. All the 
teachings and labors of the Baptist pointed to Him, and all tended to 
prepare the people to receive Him. Whether there was any change 
in the baptismal formula may be doubted, but the immediate and 
personal reference to Jesus as the Messiah was that which distinctively 
characterized the last stage of John’s work, and explains why his 
baptism still continued. 

To this form of John’s ministry the ministry of Jesus, at its begin- 
ning, corresponded. The former had borne his witness to Him, and 
He must now confirm that witness; must show Himself to be the 
Messiah through His own words and acts. Before the priests and 
the people He asserted His Messianic claims by the purifying of the 
temple, and attested them by the miracles He subsequently wrought at 
the feast. But why should John continue to baptize? It need not 
be said that if the rulers and people had responded to his preaching of 
repentance, and thus been prepared to receive the Lord, he would not 
have continued this work. But it was an indispensable condition to 
the reception of the Christ, the Holy One of God, that sin should be 
repented of and put away. Upon this John had insisted in his 
preaching, ‘‘ Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand.” But this 
preaching and this baptism, both pointing to repentance, were no less 
important now that the Messiah had actually come. Without holi- 
ness of heart they could not receive Him, could not eyen discern Him 
as the Messiah. John had already baptized many into the hope of 
His coming, but others had equal need to be baptized into the reality 
of it. 

We can now see why John should have continued baptizing after 
the Lord came, and why Jesus should Himself, through His disciples, 
also baptize. It was not enough that He had personally come. 


Part IIT.] THE SITE OF NON. 177 


Would the Jews receive Him? None could do so but the repentant. 
All those that, with hearts conscious of guilt, both personal and na- 
tional, and truly penitent, were ‘‘ waiting for the consolation of 
Israel,” were willing to be baptized, confessing their sins; but the 
unrepentant, the unbelieving, the self-righteous, all who justified 
themselves, rejected the rite (Luke vii. 29, 30). Hence it was a most 
decisive test of the spiritual state of the people. And tried by this 
test, the nation, as such, was condemned. Neither the baptism of 
John, nor that of the Lord, brought it to repentance. True, great 
numbers went at first to John, and afterward many resorted to Jesus, 
and were baptized; but these were the common people, those 
without reputation or authority. Those who ruled in all religious 
matters and gave direction to public opinion, the priests, the scribes 
the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the rich and influential, held them- 
selves almost wholly aloof. Hence, as regarded the nation at large, 
John’s baptismal work failed of its end. The true and divinely ap- 
pointed representatives of the people, the ecclesiastical authorities 
who sat in Moses’ seat, were not brought to repentance, and, there- 
fore, could not receive the Messiah. 

Thus Jesus began His work as the Baptizer with water unto re- 
pentance. It was this baptism that gave to His Judean ministry its 
distinctive character. It was an attempt to bring the nation, as 
headed up in its ecclesiastical rulers, to repentance. Had these come 
to Him or to John confessing their sins, His way would have been 
prepared, and He could then have proceeded to teach them the true 
nature of the Messianic kingdom, and prepare them for the baptism 
of the Holy Ghost. But as they had ‘‘ frustrated the counsel of God 
within themselves, being not baptized of John” (‘‘rejected for 
themselves the counsel of God,” R. V.), so they continued to frus- 
trate it by rejecting the work in which John and Jesus were jointly 
engaged. 

In the act of baptizing Jesus personally took no part. It 
was done by His disciples. The names of these disciples are not 
mentioned, but they were doubtless the same whose names had 
been already mentioned (John, ch. i.), and who came with Him 
to the Passover from Galilee. As the former disciples of John, 
and perhaps his assistants, this rite was not new co them. Hav- 
ing, also, been for some time in company with Jesus, they were 
prepared by His teachings to understand the meaning of the ser- 
vice He required from them. As yet, however, their relations 


g* 


178 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IIL. 


to Him were much the same as their former relations to John, 
and very unlike what they afterward became. 

These contemporaneous baptismal labors of the Lord and of 
John present many interesting questions, but most of them lie 
out of the pale of our inquiry. As the former did not Himself 
baptize, it is a question how His time was spent. Probably He 
taught the crowds that came to His baptism, but there is no hint 
that He healed the sick, or wrought any miracles. We can 
scarce doubt that He went up to Jerusalem to attend the two 
great feasts during this period, that of Pentecost and of Taber- 
nacles, and here He must have come more or less into contact 
with the priests and Pharisees. It does not appear, however, 
that He went about from place to place to teach, or that He 
taught in any of the synagogues. Still it is not improbable that 
before He began to baptize, or at intervals during His labors, 
He may have visited many parts of Judza, and have noted and 
tested the spiritual condition of the people. It may be, also, 
that at this time He formed those friendships of which we later 
find traces, as that with Joseph of Arimathea, and that with 
Mary and Martha. 


DeceMBER, 780 — Marcu, 781. <A. D. 27-28. 


The Pharisees hearing that Jesus baptized more dis- JOHN iii. 25, 26. 
ciples than John, He gives up his work of baptizing and JouN iy. 1-3. 
goes back to Galilee. The Baptist, in reply to the com- JOHN iii. 27-36. 
plaints of his disciples, bears a fresh testimony to Jesus 
as the Messiah. Jesus takes His way to Galilee, through JOHN iy. 4-42. 
Samaria, and abides there two days teaching, and many 
believe on Him. Upon reaching Galilee His disciples de- 
part to their respective homes. He is received with JOHN iy. 43-45. 
honor by the Galilzeans, because of the works which He 
did at Jerusalem at the feast. Coming to Cana, He heals JoHN iy. 46-54. 
the nobleman’s son at Capernaum. He afterward lives in 
retirement till called to go up to Jerusalem at the follow- JOHN y. 1. 
ing feast. 


The first point that meets us here is, why did the Lord cease 
to baptize? An answer very generally given is, that the Baptist 
was at the time cast into prison at the instigation of the Phari- 


sees, and that He, fearing a like arrest, withdrew for safety from 
Judea into Galilee. This point, as one of much importance in 


Part III.] IMPRISONMENT OF JOHN. 179 


determining the order of the events followimg, must be care- 
fully considered. 


It has been said by some that the Baptist was twice arrested.' 
This rests upon the supposed force of the verb ‘‘ was delivered up,” 
maped60n, (this is rendered, A. V. Matt. iv. 12, ‘‘ wascast into prison,” 
but in the margin ‘‘ delivered up”; in Mark 1. 14, ‘‘was put in 
prison”; the rendering in the R. V. is in both cases ‘‘delivered up.”) 
This delivering up was, they say, not his imprisonment by Herod, but 
a delivery of him by Herod to the Sanhedrin soon after the visit of 
the Deputation. From this imprisonment, however, he was soon re- 
leased, and later was imprisoned by Herod, 

This theory of two arrests seems to have been devised to explain 
the difficulty of the common interpretation, that Jesus going to Gali- 
lee immediately after John’s arrest should then begin His work under 
the very eye of Herod. But this view of two arrests of the Baptist ha 
no recent advocates. : 

The last notice we have of John as engaged in his baptismal 
work, is that given by John iii. 23: while Jesus was baptizing some- 
where in Judzxa, John was baptizing at Anon. When did his work at 
/£non cease, and why did it cease? It is held by many that it ceased 
before Jesus left Judea (John iy. 3), sometime in the summer or 
autumn of 780, and ceased because he was then imprisoned by Herod.? 
It is admitted that the Evangelist says nothing of John’s impris- 
onment as the cause of the Lord’s leaving Judea; his language 
rather gives the impression that John was still active. 

The ground on which his imprisonment is here asserted, is a chron- 
ological rather than an exegetical one. As the Lord now went from 
Juda into Galilee, it is said that this departure into Galilee must be 
the same as that in Matt. iv. 12, Mark i. 14, Luke iv. 14; and there- 
fore we must put the Baptist’s imprisonment at this time. Assuming 
that this must be so, the inference is drawn from John iy. 1, that the 
Lord’s motive in leaving Judea was fear of the Pharisees; He was 
afraid of a like imprisonment. Thus Lightfoot says: ‘‘ Herod had 
imprisoned John the Baptist under pretense of his growing too pop- 
ular. Our Saviour, understanding this, and that the Sanhedrin had 
heard of the increase of His disciples, withdrew too from Judea 
into Galilee, that He might be more remote from that kind of thunder- 
bolt John had been struck with.” But here we meet some difficul- 


1 So Pound, ii. 137. Wies., Syn. 223, refers to the old harmonist, Lamy, as pre- 
senting the same view. : 

2 So in general, with some differences as to the time, Rob., Fried., Gard., McClel., 
Eders., Ell,, and others, 


180 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IIL 


ties; if the Baptist had been arrested by Herod, he must have been 
in Herod’s territory, in Perea or Galilee, but we have no proof that 
/£non was within it; and if it was not in Pergwa or Galilee but in 
Judea, John must have given up baptizing there before the Lord 
ceased His baptismal work, which is not implied in the narrative, 
and for which there is no authority. Some suppose that John, being 
in territory under Roman rule, was arrested by Pilate at Herod’s 
request, and sent into Galilee; this is obviously a makeshift for there 
is no probability that Pilate, who did not love Herod, would make 
himself an instrument to gratify the king’s personal enmity. 

That the Pharisees at this time were becoming more determined 
in their hostility both to Jesus and John, we may well believe, but 
that they now, or later, instigated Herod to arrest the Baptist, is not 
shown. According to the Synoptists (Matt. xiv. 3, and parallels) it 
was the reproof of Herod for iis adulterous marriage with his broth- 
er’s wife, that led to John’s arrest; Josephus ascribes it to political 
motives, but nowhere speaks as if the Pharisees instigated it. If 
their hostility had now reached this stage, and they had caused the 
Baptist’s arrest through Herod, it is not likely that they would have 
permitted Jesus to carry on His work unmolested in Galilee for two 
years when they had such a convenient tool in Herod to carry out 
their purposes. That Jesus did not fear any arrest from Herod, is 
apparent from the fact that He now goes into his territory, and 
moreover takes up His abode in the near vicinity of his capital. It 
seems from the Synoptists, that it was not till the death of the Bap- 
tist that Herod heard of Jesus (Matt. xiv. 2,) a fact which clearly 
shows that up to this time the Pharisees had not sought to arouse his 
hostility to Him, and that he had not known of Him as an ally of 
John’s. 

Dismissing then as groundless the statement that Jesus left 
Judza through fear of the Pharisees and of Herod, what was the 
ground of His action? 

The words of the Evangelist are, ‘‘ When the Lord knew how 
the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized (‘‘ was making 
and baptizing,” R. V.), more disciples than John; He left Judea and 
departed again into Galilee.” We have here the facts, first, that Jesus 
baptized more disciples than John; second, that this was known to 
the Pharisees; third, that Jesus, knowing that this was known to 
them, left Judza. The inference clearly is, though not expressed, 
that the greater success of Jesus was offensive to the Pharisees; but 
that it led them to any overt act is not implied, much less that they 
then procured the arrest of John, and that Jesus, through fear of 


Part III.] IMPRISONMENT OF JOHN. 181 


them, went into Galilee. The Lord’s motive seems to have been to 
avoid any hindrance which His owu baptismal work might put in 
John’s way through the misrepresentations of the Pharisees. Evi- 
dently the jealousy of John’s disciples was awakened by the greater 
popularity of the Lord (John iii. 25), and this gave occasion to the 
enemies of both to stir up dissensions between their respective disciples. 
(So Licht., Luthardt.) It is to be noted also, that those who came 
to the Lord’s baptism were not of the rulers and priests, or of the 
Pharisaic party (Luke vii. 30), so that it failed of its end to bring the 
nation in its chief representatives to repentance. 

There is another interpretation of the Evangelist’s statement which 
lays the stress on the knowledge which the Pharisees had of the 
Lord’s baptismal success. The Lord knew that He had thus been 
brought sufficiently into prominence to make it plain that they re- 
fused to come to His baptism, and so rejected Him with full knowl- 
edge. Any further presentation of His baptismal work could, there- 
fore, be of no profit. 

But this is not inconsistent with the fact of the growing 
Pharisaic enmity. The increasing influence of Jesus, as shown by 
the numbers that came to His baptism, only brought out more 
strongly the envy and dislike of the Pharisees, and confirmed them 
in their hostility. To have continued His work could, therefore, 
have answered no good end, since it was not now the gathering ofa 
body of disciples around Him at which He aimed, but the repentance 
of the priests and leaders of the people. As said by Weiss (ii. 30, 
note): ‘‘It is in no way indicated that Jesus here gathered a congre- 
gation around Him; that is contradicted by everything we hear as to 
His baptismal ministry in Judea.” 

We conclude, then, that in John iv. 1, there is no intimation 
that the Baptist’s work had ended, but rather a plain intimation 
that it was still in progress, for there is a comparison between 
them, and the result is, that Jesus is baptizing more than John. 
By M. and M. it is said: ‘‘ We regard the ministry of John as still 
enduring at the period to which this verse relates”; and by Caspari, 
**John was still at liberty.” (So Bengel, Wies., Licht., Luthardt.) 
Greswell (ii. 212), who admits that the words of the Evangelist imply 
that, when Jesus set out on His return to Galilee, John was not yet 
cast into prison, supposes that before he reached there he was im- 
prisoned. This, however, contradicts the Synoptists, who imply that 
Jesus was in Judea when He heard of John’s imprisonment, and that 
this was the cause of His departure into Galilee; ‘‘Now when He 


182 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IT. 


heard that John was delivered up, He withdrew into Galilee” 
(Matt. iv. 12). 

We give the following arrangements of events: ist, of most har- 
monists. Soon after the Passover, Jesus and John entered upon their 
baptismal work in Judea. After a time —longer or shorter— John is 
arrested and imprisoned; Jesus, through fear of a like arrest, leaves 
Juda and goes to Galilee: and begins His public ministry there ; 
some say in the early summer, others in the late autumn. 

2d, of Lichtenstein. After the Passover Jesus returns to Naza- 
reth; remains there in retirement till the late summer, perhaps till 
feast of Tabernacles in October; goes into Judea and begins to bap- 
tize, John also baptizing at Alnon. John is imprisoned after a few 
weeks; Jesus then ceases His baptism, and returnsto Galilee. Thence 
He goes up to the unnamed feast (John v. 1). 

3d, of this book. Soon after the Passover—time undefined — 
Jesus and John begin to baptize in Judwa. Jesus ceases to baptize 
in the late autumn and goes to Galilee, John probably still continu- 
ing his work. Jesus remains in retirement three or four months, 
then goes up to the unnamed feast; and about this time John was 
imprisoned. After this feast Jesus goes to Galilee, and begins His 
ministry there. 

How long after Jesus ceased baptizing and left Judea John con- 
tinued to baptize, we do not know, but the strong probability is that 
he continued to baptize till his imprisonment. Nor do we know 
whether he continued his work at non or went to some other 
place. That at the time of his arrest he was within the jurisdiction 
of Herod Antipas, is scarcely to be doubted. But where he met with 
Herod, whether in Galilee or Perea, and under what circumstances, 
we have no information. The grounds of his imprisonmert will be 
later considered. 

We conclude that John was not imprisoned when Jesus ceased to 
baptize and left Judea. His imprisonment was some months later, 
and the Lord’s Galilean ministry began soon after it. 


The only datum we have by which to determine the time of 
the year when Jesus went into Galilee, is found in His words to 
His disciples when seated by the well in Sychar: “Say not ye, 
There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest ? behold, I 
say unto you,” etc. (John iv. 35). Some, however, deny that 
this reference to the harvest as yet four months distant is of 
any chronological value, because the expression is a proverbial 
one, based upon the fact that there is an average interval of 


Part III.] JESUS CEASES TO BAPTIZE, 183 


four months between the sowing and harvesting.’ But the form 
of the expression seems to forbid that we regard it as a proverb, 
“Say not ye, There are yet four months,” etc.; here “yet,” 71, 
obviously refers to the time when the words were spoken. 
From this time, not from the time of sowing, are four months, 
and then the harvest.2 We are, then, to determine the time of 
the harvest, and counting backward four months reach the 
time when the words were spoken. Upon the 16th Nisan, a sheaf 
of the first fruits of the barley harvest was to be waved before 
the Lord in the Temple. Till this was done no one might law- 
fully gather his grain. From this legal commencement of the 
harvest about the first of April, we obtain the month of Decem- 
ber as that in which the words were spoken.* Tholuck (in loco) 
regards the expression as proverbial, yet reaches nearly the 
same result. “As our Lord points them to the fields, it is 
highly probable that it was just then seed-time, and we are thus 
furnished with the date, to wit, that Jesus had remained in 
Judza from April, when the Passover occurred, till November.” * 

A very different result is reached by some who take the 
Lord’s words, “ Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for 
they are white already to harvest,” as not figurative but literal, 
and expressive of an actual fact. The harvest, they infer, was 
not four months distant but just at hand. Upon this ground 
Greswell (ii. 229) decides “that the time of the journey coincided 
with the acme of wheat harvest, or was but a little before it,” 
and puts it two or three weeks before Pentecost, or about the 
middle of May.*® 


The direct route from Judea to Nazareth led through Samaria by 
Sichem, and was generally taken by the companies attending the 
feast from Galilee, although the enmity of the Samaritans to the 


1 Norton, Krafft, Greswell, Alford, Westcott. 

2 Lightfoot, Baronius, Litchtenstein, Wieseler, Stier, Meyer, Robinson, Godet, Luth- 
ardt. 

3 Levit. xxiii. 10, etc.; Deut. xvi. 9, etc.; Jesephus, Antiq. iii. 10. 5. 

* Lightfoot, Lichtenstein, Meyer, Ellicott. 

5A. Clarke and Stier, putting the harvest in May, make the departure to have been in 
January; Stanley, in January or February. 

6 So Townsend, in loco, ‘‘ The Messiah,"’ 101; Caspari, Eders., Alford regards all chrono- 
logical inferences built on this passage, as unwarranted. A writer in the DiSlin Review, 
April, 1890, finds the following meaning: Say ye not that the crop is already four months 
old, and the harvest is coming ? 


oq 


184 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IIL 


Jews seems especially to have manifested itself on such occasions.‘ 
Josephus says’ that it was necessary for those that would travel 
quickly to take that route, as by it Jerusalem could be reached in 
three days from Galilee. Sychar, the city of Samaria through which 
He passed, is regarded by many as a corruption of Sychem (Acts 
vii. 16), which stood upon the site of the present Neapolis or 
Nablous, and is often mentioned in biblical history.* For a time 
after the return from the captivity, Samaria (1 Kings xvi. 24) was 
the chief city, but Sichem soon gained the ascendency; and though 
Herod had recently rebuilt Samaria with much magnificence, yet Sichem 
retained its place as the leading city of the province. The change 
from Sichem to Sychar is supposed to mark the contempt of the Jews 
toward the Sichemites, the Sychar meaning the ‘‘toper city,” or 
the ‘‘heathen city” ; but it may have been made by those speak- 
ing Greek for easier pronunciation. Alexander calls it ‘‘a later 
Aramaic form.” It is not to be supposed that this change was made 
by John in his narrative to express his own dislike, or that, as said 
by Stier, ‘‘it was an intentional intimation of the relation and posi- 
tion of things between Judza and Samaria.” Unless the name 
Sychar was in common use, we can scarce suppose him to have em- 
ployed it; for in a simple historical statement the intentional use of 
any mock name or opprobrious epithet would be out of keeping. 

Some make Sychar a village near Sichem, but distinct from it.* 
This was the early opinion. They were distinguished by Eusebius, 
and in the Jerusalem Itinerarium.* Raumer supposes that the city 
of Sichem was a long straggling one, and that the east end of it near 
Jacob’s well was called Sychar. There is now a village near the well 
called El Askar, which some have supposed to be Sychar. Thomson 
(ii. 206) says: ‘‘This is so like John’s Sychar that I feel inclined to 
adopt it.”* The most recent investigation accepts this conclusion. 
(For a discussion of the matter, see Eders., ii. App., 767; Tristram, 
1B. By, 192): 

Jacob’s well, where Jesus was resting Himself when He met the 
Samaritan woman, ‘‘is on the end of a low spur or swell running out 
from the northeastern base of Gerizim; and is still 15 or 20 feet above 
the level of the plain below.”? It was formerly believed to have 


been dug out of the solid rock, but we now know that the upper - 


1 Josephus, Antiq. xx. 6. 1. 2 Life, 52. 
3So Meyer, Wieseler, Raumer, Robinson, Ritter, Alford. 
4 Hug, Luthardt, Lichtenstein. 5 See Raumer, 146, note. 


®So Godet, Luthardt, M. and M., Westcott. See contra Robinson, iii. 133; see alse 
Wieseler, 256, note. 


7 Robinson, iii. 132. 


OE _  — a 


Part II.] THE WELL OF JACOB. 185 


part is through a mixture of alluvium and limestone fragments, and 
the interior seem to have been lined throughout with rough masonry. 
The diameter is seven or eight feet. Anderson, in ‘‘ Z%wenty-one 
Years’ Work,” (192) says: the well was doubtless sunk deep at first, 
but its original depth cannot now be ascertained, it having gradually 
filled up, but was probably near one hundred feet. Its present 
depth is about seventy-five. The quantity of water in it greatly 
varies; Maundrell found it five yards in depth. Sometimes it is 
nearly or wholly dry. Dr. Wilson in 1842 found so little water in 
it, that a servant, whom he let down to the bottom, was able by 
means of dry sticks thrown to him, to kindle a blaze which dis- 
tinctly showed the whole of the well from the top to the bottom. 
Osborne says’: ‘‘ There was no water at the time of our visit, near 
the close of December.” ‘‘ Formerly there was a square hole open- 
ing into a carefuily built vaulted chamber, about 10 feet square, 
in the floor of which was the true mouth of the well. Now a 
portion of the vault has fallen in, and completely covered up the 
mouth, so that nothing can be seen but a shallow pit half filled with 
stones and rubbish.”? A church was built near this spot, of which 
few traces remain. It is said that the Russians have bought the site, 
and are about to rebuild the church. 

Tt has been much questioned why a well should have been dug 
here, since there are several springs within a little distance giving an 
abundance of water. Some suppose that earthquakes may have 
caused the springs to flow since the well was dug. More probable is 

_the supposition that Jacob found the springs in the possession of 
others, who were unwilling to share the water with him, and there- 
fore, as a matter of necessity, he must obtain it from a well (Tris- 
tram, B. P., 187). Why the woman should have come to this well to 
draw water, which was so much more easily attainable near by, can- 
not now be explained. It may be, as suggested by Caspari, that the 
village was much larger in the Lord’s day, and stretched near to the 
well; or, if the city itself was at some distance, and the language seems 
to imply this (verses 8, 28-30), she may have lived in the suburbs, 
for it is not said that she resided in the city; but if she did so, she may 
have had special reasons for wishing the water of this well, 
because of its coolness or other qualities; or as especially valuable be- 
cause of its association with Jacob. Porter (ii. 342) speaks of those 
at Damascus, who send to a particular fountain a mile or more distant 
from their homes, although water is everywhere very abundant. 


It was about the sixth hour that Jesus sat on the well. 


1 Palestine, 335. 2 Porter, ii. 340. 


186 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IIL. 


This, according to Jewish reckoning, would be 12 m. or noon; if 
reckoned according to Roman computation, 5 to 6 P. M., or as 
some say,'5to 6 a.m. Ebrard (296), who contends that John 
always uses the Roman computation, prefers the evening here on 
the grounds that the noonday was an unfit time to travel, and 
that wells were usually visited for water at evening. But if we 
remember that this was in December, travelling at midday will 
not appear strange. Noon was not, indeed, the time for general 
resort to the well, but such resort must be determined in partic- 
ular cases by individual need; and that the woman was alone, 
and held so long a private conversation uninterrupted, shows 
that it was an hour when the well was not generally visited. 
There seems, then, no reason to depart from the common opinion 
that it was about noon.? At this hour the Jews were accus- 
tomed to take their principal meal.* 

The reception which the Lord met with among the Samari- 
tans was in striking contrast with His reception in Juda; yet 
among them He seems to have wrought no miracles, and 
to have been received because the truth He taught was the con- 
vincing proof of His Messianic character. 

Arriving in Galilee, Jesus was honorably received by the 
Galileans, for they had been at the Passover, and had “seen all 
the things that He did at Jerusalem at the feast” (John iv. 43- 
45). Of “the many that then believed on Him,” a considerable 
part may have been Galilean pilgrims. But in face of this hon- 
orable reception, how are His words (verse 44) to be understood, 
“that a prophet hath no honor in his owr country,” which 
are apparently cited as explaining why He went into Galilee? 
There are several interpretations, the chief of which are: 1. 
Galilee is to be taken in opposition to Nazareth. In this city, 
His own country, Jesus had no honor, but elsewhere in Galilee 
He was received as a prophet.’ 2. Galilee is to be taken in 
opposition to Judea. Judxza was His birthplace, and so His 
own country, and it was also the land of the prophets; but there 


1 Greswell, ii. 216; McKnight. 

2 For this, Lnthardt, Meyer, Godet. For 6 p. m.,M. and M., Westcott. The 
point how John computed time, has been already discussed (John i. 39). 

3 Winer, ii. 47. 

4 Lightfoot, Krafft, Lange with a slight modification. 


Part II1.] SECOND VISIT AT CANA. 187 


He had found no reception, and had been compelled to discon- 
tinue His ministry. In Galilee, on the contrary, all were ready 
to honor Him.’ 3. Galilee is His own country, where, according 
to the proverb, He would have had no honor unless He had 
first gone into Judea and distinguished Himself there. It was 
His miracles and works abroad that gave Him fame and favor 
at home.* 

The last interpretation appears best to suit the scope of the 
narrative. The connection between verses 43 and 44 isthis. In 
verse 43, the fact is stated that He went into Galilee; and in 
verse 44, the reason is assigned why He went. As, according to 
the proverb, a prophet is without honor in his own country, by 
retiring into Galilee He could avoid all publicity and find 
retirement. ‘He went to Galilee because there in His own 
country He could expect no honor, . . and could hope not 
to be observed there, but to remain in rest and quiet.” (Luthardt.) 
But in verse 45, the fact is stated that the Galileans, notwith- 
standing the proverb, did receive Him, and the reason is also 
added, because they had been at Jerusalem and had seen what 
He did there. And in verses 46-53, a particular instance is 
given, showing how high was His reputation in Galilee, and what 
publicity attended His movements. His arrival at Cana was 
soon known at Capernaum, and a nobleman from the latter city, 
supposed by many to be Chuza, steward of Herod (Luke viii. 3), 
by others, Manaen (Acts xiii. 1), coming to Him, desired that 
He would return with him, and heal his son. Without leaving 
Cana, Jesus healed him. This was His second Galilean miracle. 

From the time of this miracle at Cana, we lose sight of the 
Lord till He reappears going up to a feast at Jerusalem (John v. 
1). If, as we have supposed, He left Judza in December, this 
miracle must have been wrought soon after His arrival in Gali- 
lee. “This second time, as at the first, He signalized His return 
to Galilee by a new miracle at Cana.” (Godet.) As the first 
feast which He could attend was that of Purim, in March, an 
interval of some two or three months must have elapsed. If 
this feast was the Passover, or any of the later feasts, this inter- 
val was correspondingly prolonged. How was this time spent? 


1 Ebrard, Norton, Westcott, M. and M. 2 Meyer, Alford, Godet, Luthardt, 


188 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IIL 


Those who make the imprisonment of the Baptist to have taken 
place before He left Juda, suppose that He now entered upon 
His Galilean work. But, upon grounds already stated, we con- 
clude that John was not yet imprisoned, and therefore, His Gal- 
ilzan work could not now begin, as the two are closely connected 
by the Synoptists (Matt. iv. 12, Mark i. 14, Luke iii. 20 and iv. 
14). Several additional considerations induce us to think that 
this period was not spent in any public labors. 1. When, after 
the imprisonment of John Jesus went into Galilee to teach and 
to preach His disciples were not with Him, and not till He had 
begun His labors at Capernaum did they rejoin Him (Matt. iv. 
18, Mark i. 16, Luke v. 2-11). There was, then, an interval 
after He had ended His baptismal labors in Judza, in which 
labors they were His helpers, and before the beginning of His 
ministry in Galilee, during which His disciples were separated 
from Him, and seem to have returned to their accustomed 
avocations. But if His Galilean work began as soon as His 
Judean work ended, there was no time for them to have thus 
returned to their homes, and, therefore, no opportunity to recall 
them to His service. 

2. The Lord gave up baptizing, as we have seen, because 
of the hostility of the Pharisees, and their rejection of the rite; 
“not because the Baptist was then imprisoned. So long as John 
was able, both in word and act, to bear witness to Him as the 
Messiah, He could Himself seek retirement, and wait the issue 
of John’s ministry. He could not, till the- Baptist was impris- 
oned and his voice thus silenced, leave Judea and begin His 
work in Galilee. To Galilee He went, therefore, as a place of 
seclusion, not of publicity; of rest, not of activity. The prov- 
erb that a prophet has no honor in his own country, did not 
indeed prove true in His case. He was honorably received, 
and immediately besought to heal the sick. Still there is no 
record that He entered upon any public labors, that He preached 
or taught in the synagogues, or wrought any miracle beside 
that recorded of the nobleman’s son. How or where His time 
was spent, can only be conjectured. From the fact that no men- 
tion is made of Nazareth, it has been inferred that He pur. 
posely avoided that city, and took another route to Cana. That 


Part If] JESUS AT JERUSALEM. 189 


He is spoken of as being at Cana, gives a show of confirmation 
to the supposition already alluded to, that Mary and her child 
ren had now left Nazareth, and were dwelling at Cana. But 
we may as readily suppose that He was now visiting at the house 
of the friends, or relatives, where He changed the water into 
wine. 


Passover, Marco 30— ApriL 5, 781. A. D. 28. 


From Galilee Jesus goes up to a feast, andat the pool of JOHN y. 1. 
Bethesda heals an impotent man. This act, done onthe Sab- JOHN y. 2-9. 
bath day, arouses the anger of the Jews, who conspire against JOHN y. 10-16. 
His life. He defends His right to heal onthe Sabbath upon JOHN y. 17-47. 
grounds that still more exasperate them. At this time He Marv. iy. 12. 
hears of the imprisonment of the Baptist, and retires to Gali- Mark i, 14. 
lee, to begin His work there. LUKE iy. 14. 

« After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up 
to Jerusalem.” Which feast was this? Opinions are divided 
between Purim in March, Passover in April, Pentecost in May, 
and Tabernacles in September; and some minor feasts have also 
found advocates. Before considering the arguments urged in 
favor of each, let us examine the statement of John: “ After 
this there was a feast of the Jews.” 

There has been much doubt as to the true reading, whether 
a feast or the feast—éopr) or 4 éopr)—but the weight of 
authority is against the article. W.and H. omit it, Tischen- 
dorf inserts it. In R. V. it is omitted: “ There was a feast of 
the Jews”; but in the margin it says “ Many ancient authori- 
ties read, the feast.” Accepting the reading, ‘a feast,’”’ does not 
the absence of the article determine what kind of feast it was? 
It is generally held that if the article was used, this would show 
only that one of the three great feasts could be meant; not being 
used, one of the minor feasts must be meant. But are these cer- 
tain inferences? Why might not the writer speak of one of the 
greater feasts simply as a feast? He would unquestionably do 
this if he saw any ground for it. The mere absence of the arti- 
cle does not warrant us in saying that the Evangelist must have 
meant a minor feast, nor does its presence define which of the 
greater feasts is intended. Tholuck says: ‘The Passover may 
be meant, or other feasts”; and Abp. Thomson observes, that “ all 


1% THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part TIL 


its omission could prove, would be that the Evangelist did not 
think it needful to describe the feast more particularly.” It is 
said by Robinson and others, that if the article was used, the 
feast must have been the Passover as the most ancient of all 
feasts. But Josephus speaks of the feast of Tabernacles as “a 
feast most holy and eminent” (Antiq., viii. 4.1). If the article 
was used, this feast would have the preference. (So Browne, 
Westcott.) 

But, if the article be wanting, it is said that the feast is still 
defined by the addition to it of the explanatory words “of the 
Jews,” tév ‘lovdaiwy.' It is given as a rule of Hebrew, and so 
transferred to Scripture Greek, that the “noun before a genitive 
is made definite by prefixing the article, not to the noun itself, 
but to the genitive.”? Thus, the phrase before us should be 
rendered “the feast of the Jews,” or the Jews’ festival,” which 
must be understood of the Passover. But the rule is given with 
an important qualification by Winer:* “The article is frequently 
omitted, when a noun, denoting an object of which the individ. 
ual referred to possesses but one, is clearly defined by means of 
a genitive following.”‘ As there was but one feast of Taber- 
nacles, the phrase é0p77) tOv oxnvG@v would be properly rendered 
‘the feast of Tabernacles;” but as there were several feasts 
kept by the Jews, “feast of the Jews,” may mean any feast. 

From the form of the expression, then, nothing certain can 
be determined. We learn simply that Jesus went up to Jerusa- 
lem at one of the Jewish feasts. We not even learn whether it 
was one of the greater or lesser feasts. It seems to be men- 
tioned only as giving the occasion why He went up to Jerusalem. 
He would not have gone except there had been a feast, but its 
name was unimportant to the Evangelist’s purpose.* Let us 
then enquire what light is thrown upon it from the general scope 
of this Gospel. 


1 Hug, Int., 449. See John vii. 2, “‘ Now the feast of the Jews, the feast of taber- 
nacles, was at hand,’ R. V. 

2 Robinson, Har., 190. See in the Septuagint, Deut. xvi. 13; 2 Kings, xviii. 15; 
also Matt. xii. 24; Luke ii. 11; Acts viii. 5. 

8 Gram. Thayer's trans., page 125. 

+ See also Liicke in loco, who agrees that only where the governing noun exists 
singly in its kind, is it rendered definite by a noun following. 

5 See Luthardt in loco. It is said by Robinson, that John “uses the festivals ag 
measures of time,” but this is an over-statement of the chronological element, 


Part III.] SECOND PASSOVER OF HIS MINISTRY. 191 


It is apparent that John does not design, any more than the 
other Evangelists, to give us a complete chronological outline of 
the Lord’s life. But we see that he mentions by name several 
feasts which the Lord attended which the Synoptists do not 
mention at all; and these so mentioned were by no means all 
the feasts that occurred during His ministry. That of Pente- 
cost is nowhere mentioned, nor does John say that those 
mentioned by him were all that Jesus attended. During the first 
year of His labors, or while baptizing in Judzxa— supposing His 
baptism to have extended to December — there is good ground to 
believe that He was present at the three chief feasts, though the 
Passover only is mentioned. On the other hand, one Passover is 
mentioned which it is probable He did not attend (John vi. 4). 
Upon examination, we see that the feasts which are named 
stand in some close connection with the Lord’s words or acts, so 
that it is necessary to specify them. Thus in ii. 13, the mention 
of the Passover explains the purification of the temple, or driv- 
ing out of the sellers of oxen and sheep; in vi. 4, it explains how 
such a great company should have gathered to Him in so lonely 
a region across the sea; in vii. 2, His words take their significance 
from the special ceremonies connected with that feast; in x. 22, 
His presence in Solomon’s porch is thus explained. In each of 
these cases the name of the feast is mentioned, not primarily as 
a datum of time, but as explanatory of something in the narra- 
tive; and as the mention of the other feasts was unimportant to 
his purpose, John passes them by in silence. But the feast 
before us he mentions, yet does not give its name. What shall 
we infer from this? Some, as has been said, infer that it must 
have been one of the minor feasts, for had it been one of the 
chief feasts it would have been named. But, as he specifies 
(x. 22) one of the minor feasts, there seems no sufficient reason 
why he should not specify this, had it been such. All that we 
can say is, that there was no such connection between this feast 
and what Jesus said or did while attending it, that it was neces- 
sary to specify it. The healing of the impotent man and the 
events that followed might have taken place at any feast. 

The silence, then, of John determines nothing respecting 


1 See ii. 18; vi. 4; vii. 2; x. 22. 


192 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IIL 


the nature of this feast. We cannot infer with any assurance, 
because he has mentioned three Passovers beside, that this was 
a fourth; nor, on the other hand, that he would have so specified 
it had it been a Passover. 

As this feast is not named, and the presence or absence of 
the article does not determine which it was, we must examine it 
from the chronological point of view, and learn its relations to 
the feasts before and after. And the first element to be taken 
into account is the length of the Lord’s baptismal work follow- 
ing His first Passover (John ii. 13). Opinions are here divided, 
as we have already seen; some suppose Him to have ceased that 
work, and to have left Judea in May, a few weeks after that 
Passover (John iv. 3; so Gres., Caspari, Eders., McCiel.). If this 
be so, in the remainder of this year, for we may believe that the 
feast of Pentecost was already past, would fall the greater feast of 
Tabernacles, preceded by the Day of Atonement, and the minor 
feasts of Wood-gathering in August ; of Trumpets in September; 
of Dedication in December. Lach of these, except the last, has its 
advocates; for Wood-gathering, Edersheim; for Trumpets, 
Westcott. Caspari defends the Day of Atonement. But the first 
two have small claim for consideration. The feast of Wood- 
offering (Nehemiah x. 34 ; Joseph., War, ii. 17. 6) whose object 
was to bring wood for the altar, was observed several times in 
the course of the year, of which the 15 Ab-(August), was the most 
important, and it is‘the feast at this time which is advocated by 
Edersheim (ii. App., see Reland, Antiq., 308). As tothe monthly 
feasts of Trumpets, Westcott selects that on the first of Septem- 
ber. It is a sufficient answer to the claims of these two feasts, 
that both were of subordinate importance, and little attended by 
the Jews. As tothe Day of Atonement, from the very nature 
of its services, it cannot be called a feast (Levit. xvi. 29 ff.). 

But most put the Lord’s departure from Judza not in April 
or May, but much later, in November or December. The feast 
of Dedication was observed about the middle of December, and 
it is generally agreed that this cannot be the feast intended by 
the Evangelist. The next was that in March, the feast of Purim. 
That this feast is the one in question was first suggested by 
Kepler, and has since found many eminent supporters. But 


satt TIT] THE UNNAMED FEAST. 193 


before we consider the arguments in its favor, let us examine its 
origin and history. 

Purim was not a Mosaic feast, or of divine appointment, but one 
established by the Jews while in captivity in commemoration of their 
deliverance from the murderous plans of Haman (Hsther iii. 7; ix. 
24). It is derived from ‘‘ pur,” the Persian word for lot. Haman 
sought to find an auspicious day for the execution of his design by 
casting lots. The lot fell on the 14th Adar. Failing in his purpose, 
this day was kept thereafter by the Jews as a festival. It seems 
to have been first observed by th Jews out of Palestine, and 
eighty-five elders made exceptions against it as an innovation against 
the Law.! It is mentioned in Maccabees (2 Mac. xv. 36) as Mordecai’s 
day. It is also mentioned by Josephus,” who says ‘‘ that even now 
all the Jews that are in the habitable earth keep these days festival.” 
It is often alluded to in the Talmud.* Of the two days originally 
set, (Esther ix. 21,) the first was chiefly observed. 

Such was the origin of the feast. It was commemorated by the 
reading of Esther in the synagogues, and by general festivity, with 
plays and masquerades. Maimonides says it was forbidden to fast or 
weep on this day. It was rather a national and political than 
religious solemnity ;* and as no special services were appointed for its 
observance at the temple, there was no necessity of going up to 
Jerusalem; nor does it appear that this was their custom. In this re- 
spect it was unlike the feast of Dedication, which, as commemorating 
the purification of the temple, had a religious character. Each Jew 
observed it as a day of patriotic rejoicing and festivity, wherever he 
chanced to be.® Lightfoot (on Mark i. 38) remarks that if the feast 
did not come on a synagogue day, those living in a village where was 
no synagogue, need not go to some other village te read the book of 
Esther, but could wait till a synagogue day.® 

From this brief survey of the history, and the manner of observ- 
ance of this feast, it is highly improbable that it is the feast meant by 
John. It was not one of their divinely appointed feasts, nor was 
there any legal obligation to keep it. It was not a feast specifically 
religious, but patriotic; a day, making due allowance for difference 


1 Lightfoot, on John x. 22. 2 Antiq., xi. 6. 13. 

83 Winer, ii. 289; Wieseler, 206. 4 Ewald, iv. 261. 

5 Of the mode of its observance in this country at the present time, a recent New York 
journal gives the following account : ‘‘ The day is devoted to mirth and merry-making. 
In the evening and morning the synayogues are lighted up, and the reader chants the 
book of Esther. It is a custom among the Jews on this occasion to visit each other’s 
houses in masked attire and exchange joyful greetings.” 

§ See generally, Hengstenberg, Christol., iii. 240; Hug, Int., 449; Wieseler, 222; Brown, 
Jew. Antiq., i. 574, 

9 


194 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part III. 


in customs and institutions, not unlike the day that commemorates 
our own national independence. There were no special rites that 
made it necessary to go up to Jerusalem, and even those residing in 
villages where was no synagogue were not obliged to go to a village 
where one was to be found. Why, then, should Jesus go up from 
Galilee to be present at this feast ? It was not a time in which men’s 
minds were prepared to hear spiritual instruction, nor could He 
sympathize with the rude and boisterous, not to say disorderly and 
drunken manner in which the day was kept. Stier (v. 75), who de- 
fends Purim, admits ‘‘the revengeful and extravagant spirit which 
animated it,” and ‘‘the debauched manner in which these days of ex- 
cess were spent.” Yet he thinks motives of compassion disposed the 
Lord to visit once ‘‘this melancholy caricature of a holy festivity; ” 
but it is well said by Edersheim: “I can scarcely conceive our Lord 
going to a feast observed with such boisterous merriment.” We can 
see no sufficient motive for sucha journey. The tenor of the narrative 
naturally leads us to think of one of the greater and generally attended 
festivals. If it be said of a Jew that he went up to Jerusalem to a feast, 
the obvious understanding would be that it was a feast that he was 
legally bound to attend, and which could be rightly kept only at 
Jerusalem. 

The chief argument in favor of Purim, and, indeed, the only one 
of importance, is that this feast is brought by John into such close 
connection with the Passover (vi. 4), and that if it be not Purim, then 
a year and a half, at least, must have elapsed ere Jesus visited Jerusa- 
lem again, the next recorded visit being that to the feast of Taberna- 
cles (John vii. 2). But this is not the only instance in which John 
narrates events widely separated in time, without noting the interval. 
Thus, ch. vi. relates what took place before a Passover, and ch. vil. 
what took place at the feast of Tabernacles, six months later. In like 
manner, in x. 22, is a sudden transition from this feast of Tabernacles 
to that of Dedication. Why the intervening events are not mentioned, 
finds explanation in the peculiar character of this gospel. That Jesus 
should have absented Himself for so long a time from the feasts, is 
explained by the hostility of the Jews, and their purpose to slay Him 
(John v. 16-18; vii. 1). 

On the other hand, if this feast be Purim, and the Passover in vi. 
4, be the first Passover after it, or the second of the Lord’s ministry, 
then the interval between them, about three weeks, is not sufficient for 
all the events that must have taken place. And still less is the interval 
between December, when most of the advocates of Purim suppose the 
Lord’s Galilean work to have begun, and the following Passover (vi. 


Part I11.] THE UNNAMED FEAST. 195 


4) sufficient to include all that the Synoptists relate. The feeding of 
the five thousand, as is generally agreed, and as will be hereafter 
shown, marks the culmination of His work in Galilee; yet this took 
place according to this view in three or four months after His work 
began, for it was a little before the Passover (vi. 4). And into this 
short space are crowded two-thirds, at least, of all that He did in 
Galilee, so far as recorded. This would be very improbable, even if, 
as is supposed, His labors there extended only through a year. In 
the highest degree improbable is the view of Wieseler, followed by 
Ellicott, that for all this the little interval between Purim and Pass- 
over was sufficient.’ 

The order of events thus presented to us must be more fully ex- 
amined. If this feast was Purim, and was followed a few days after 
by the Passover (vi. 4), the Evangelist mentions only three Passovers, 
ii, 13, vi. 4, xi. 55, and consequently, the Lord’s ministry was only of 
two years and some months duration; and this conclusion is accepted 
by most who accept Purim. We have then this order: 1st, Passover, 
cleansing of Temple. 2d, Baptismal work in Judea till December. 
3d, Departure to Galilee and sojourn there till Purim in March, 
preaching and teaching. 4th, Returns after Purim to Galilee, and 
continues His work there till Autumn. 5th, He goes up to the 
Tabernacles in October (John vii. 1. ff.). 6th, He is in Jerusalem at 
the feast of Dedication in December (x. 22). 7th, He goes up to the 
last Passover in April. Thus we have a ministry of little more than 
two years. 

The general objection to this shorter ministry is, that it crowds 
too many events into the Galilean period. It is said to begin in 
December and to end in April of the second year following, leaving 
only the interval between December and the following October when 
He left Galilee— less than a year—for His work of gathering dis- 
ciples there. Whoever reflects on the nature of the Lord’s mission, 
how difficult it was for the Jews to understand the significance of His 
words and His works, and what misconceptions respecting Him pre- 
vailed, must see that time was a most essential element. He must 
give the people, even those best prepared to hear Him, some time for 
reflection. Their conceptions of the nature of the kingdom of God 
could not be changed in a moment; their discernment of the failure 
of the covenant people and of their unfitness for the Messiah, must be 
of gradual growth. It is true that in some very receptive minds 
faith in His person might be quickly formed, but a right knowledge 


1 See Lichtenstein, 174; Riggenbach, 406. 


196 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IIL 


of His Messianic work was, of necessity, one that required much 
teaching. 

Upon these grounds we think the feast of Purim is to be rejected. 
It was a feast which it is not at all probable Jesus would go up to 
Jerusalem to attend, and whose introduction here brings chronological 
confusion into the gospel history. 

The next feast in order of time is that of the Passover in April. 
In favor of this feast it may be said, that it was one which Jesus 
would naturally attend as having for Him a special significance. It 
was also the feast that had the most distinctly religious character, 
and it was very generally attended by the people, especially the most 
serious and devout. According to Hengstenberg, ‘‘it was the only 
one at which it was a universal custom to make a pilgrimage to Jeru- 
salem.” * We may thus infer that He would certainly go, unless pre- 
vented by the open hostility of the Jews. But no such hostility now 
appears. It was aroused into activity by the healing of the impotent 
man (John y. 16-18) but till this event, He was unmolested. 

But the objection is taken that if this be a Passover, and another 
is mentioned (vi. 4) which apparently He did not attend, then He 
was not present at any feast till the feast of Tabernacles (vii. 2), a 
period of a year and a half.* This objection has been already alluded 
to. Whether the Lord did actually go up to any feast between that of 
v. 1 and that of vii. 2, cannot be determined. We know, at least, 
that He would not, after the rulers at Jerusalem had sought to slay 
Him, needlessly expose His life to peril. To the laws of God respect- 
ing the feasts He would render all obedience, but with the liberty of 
a son, not with the servile scrupulosity of a Pharisee. As He was 
Lord of the Sabbath, so He was Lord of the feasts, and He attended 
them or did not attend them, as seemed best to Him. From John 
(vii. 21, 23), where He refers to a work which He had previously 
done at Jerusalem, and which we must identify with the healing of 
the impotent man (John v. 5), it appears obvious that He had not, 
during the interval, been publicly teaching there, and therefore had 
not attended any feast. Still the point is not certain, as He might 


1 Tf, indeed, wesuppose, with Edersheim and Westcott, this unnamed feast to have 
been in the August or September following the first Passover in April, and to have been 
followed by that in John vi. 4, as the second, we gain more time, and so better meet 
the statements of the Evangelists; but, even here, events are too much crowded, as we 
shall see when we examine them in detail. 

2 See Luke ii. 41, where this feast is specially mentioned. 

3 Hug, Int., 448; Pressensé. 

+ Jarvis, Int., 570-576, makes Him to have attended them all, even that of Dedica 
cation. This is in the highest degree improbable, 


Part II1.] THE UNNAMED FEAST. 197 


fave been present as a private worshipper, and without attracting 
public attention; yet this is improbable.? 

Another objection to identifying this feast with the Passover, is 
that John relates nothing as having occurred between the feasts v. 1 
and vi. 4, an interval of a year. This objection has already been 
sufficiently noticed. 

Pentecost is the feast next in order, and occurred this year on the 
19th of May. This feast is not mentioned by any of the Evangelists, 
nor do we know that the Lord was ever present at it. Though it 
has had some able advocates, as Calvin, Bengel, and lately, Town- 
send, and was adopted by many of the ancients, it has no special 
arguments in its favor. It was not so generally attended as Passover 
or Tabernacles, and no reason appears why Jesus snould have 
omitted Passover and gone up to Pentecost. 

The feast of Tabernacles followed upon the 23d of September. 
The chief argument in its favor is, that it brings the feast of v. 1 into 
closer connection with that of vii. 2, only a year intervening, and thus 
best explains his words vii. 21-23. But some months more or less 
are not under the circumstances important, for the miracle with its 
results must have been fresh in their minds even after a much longer 
interval. If He had not in the interval between these feasts been at 
Jerusalem, as is most probable, His reappearance would naturally 
carry their minds back to the time when they last saw Him, and recall 
both His work and their own machinations against Him. Lichten- 
stein (175) defends this feast, but it isin connection with the view 
which we cannot adopt, that our Lord spent the summer of 780 in 
retirement. 

The great objection to identifying the feast before us with that of 
Tabernacles, is, that it puts between the end of Chapter iv. and the 
beginning of Chapter v. a period of eight or nine months, which the 
Evangelists are said to pass over in silence.* 

Comparing these various feasts together, that of the Passover 
seems to have most in its favor, and that of Purim least. Some inci- 
dental points bearing upon this question will be discussed as we pro- 
ceed. We give the following order as the result of our, inquiries: 
Jesus ceases baptizing and leaves Judza in December, 780. His dis- 
ciples depart to their homes, and He lives in retirement till March, 
781, when He goes up to this feast, the Passover. At this time, on 


1 See Greswell, ii. 247, who maintains that the five instances recorded by John 
“embrace all the instances of our Saviour’s attendance in Jerusalem at any of the feasts.” 

2 So Riggenbach, 409. 

3 Ebrard avoids this objecticn, but falls into another as great, by supposing nothing 
recorded between the two feasts (,onn y. 1 and vii. 2), but the sending of the twelve and 
the feeding of the five thousand. 


198 THE izTE OF CUR LORD, [Part IIL 


His way or after His arrival, He hears of the imprisonment of John, 
and returns to Galilee to begin His work there. 

Recent writers are much divided in opinion. 

For Purim: Tisch., Meyer, Stroud, Pressensé, Wieseler, Lange, 
Farrar, Godet, Dwight, M. and M., Baumlein, Weiss. 

Pentecost: Bengel, Browne, Lewin, Friedlieb, McClellan, Grenville. 

Passover: Lightfoot, Grotius, Robinson, Sepp, Greswell, Gardiner, 
Wordsworth, Weitbrecht. 

Tabernacles: Ewald, Ebrard, Licht. 

Day of Atonement: Caspari. 

Feast of Trumpets: Westcott. 

Feast of Wood-gathering: Edersheim. 

Undecided: Tholuck, Geikie, Neander, Alford, Luthardt. 

For early opinions, see commentary of Maldonatus in loco, also 
Bengel, Meyer. 


At this feast the Lord healed an impotent man at the pool of 
Bethesda. This was a place of resort for the sick, and its waters 
were supposed to have, naturally or supernaturally, healing 
virtue.’ Let us inquire as to its position. 


The first point is the right rendering : What is to follow the 
adjective, ‘‘ sheep,” —pofarixy? In A. V., ‘‘ There is by the sheep 
market a pool”; in R. V., ‘‘ by the sheep gate” ; others render it, 
‘“‘There is by the sheep pool a pool” (so DeSauley, M. and M.); 
others still, ‘‘ There is by the sheep pool a ‘‘ place” or “‘ building ” (so 
Meyer, Weiss). The Evangelist’s intention plainly is to define the 
position of the pool Bethesda by reference to another place, whether 
market, or gate, or pool. If ‘‘ market” be inserted, there is the ob- 
jection that no sheep market is mentioned in the Old Testament. 
There is mention of the ‘‘sheep gate” (Neh. iii. 32; xii. 39), but if 
the Evangelist meant this, why not mention it ? If we insert ‘‘ pool,” 
where it is said by some the sacrifices were washed, we have no ac- 
count of any such ‘‘sheep pool,” nor is there any proof that the 
sacrifices were washed before offering. For the washing of the en- 
trails there was in the temple a washing room (Lightfoot, in loco), but 
that there was a pool where they were washed, is only conjecture. It 
seems, therefore, more probable that the pool obtained its name from 
the sheep gate in its vicinity; and this gate is placed by many at 
the east or northeast side of the temple, and, perhaps, is the same as 
the present St. Stephen’s gate. 

1Tt will be remembered that verse 4, ‘‘ For an angel went down at acertain season 
into the pool, ff..” is of doubtful genuineness. It is omitted by Tisch., W. and H., and 


inthe R. V. See Trench, Mir. 203. Itis said by Pusey, Saplism, 277, tha* the fathers un- 
derstood a ‘certain season ” to mean vearl¥ -and, that the annual cure was at Pentecost. 


Part IIT] POOL OF BETHESDA. 199 


The name Bethesda gives us no certain information, the right 
reading being in dispute. Some ancient authorities having Bethsaida, 
others Bethzatha (the last is adopted by W. and H., Tisch., R. V. 
Margin. See Edersheim, i. 462; Qt. St., 1888, p. 124). If, as has 
been said, Bethzatha is the same as Bezetha, the hill north of the 
temple, the name may be local—the pool of Bezetha. If the 
name Bethesda be retained, it is generally rendered ‘‘ the house of 
mercy,” domus benignitatis— perhaps, as Meyer suggests, ‘‘a charit- 
able foundation” ; others, ‘‘ house of offence.” (See Herzog, Encyc., 
ii. 118, and commentators.) 

We turn now to tradition. Eusebius, Onxomasticon as translated 
by Jerome, speaks of Bethesda as a pool bearing the name Probatike, 
and yet as having two parts: Bethesda, Piscina in Jerusalem quae voca- 
batur —haec quinque quondam porticus habuit ostendunturque gemini 
lacus. Of these one is filled with rain-water, but the other with red 
water, as if reddened with the blood of the victims washed in it. 
Thus the name Bethesda seemed to have included two pools near 
each other. (So in tin. Hieros. mention is made of twin pools— 
-— piscinae gemillares — quae appellantur Bethsadi.) 

Where were these twin pools? There has been a current belief 
for centuries that the deep excavation on the northeast corner of the 
temple area known as Birket Israel, is Bethesda. It is said by De 
Saulcy (ii. 285): ‘‘ The two pools of St. John’s gospel were close to, and 
Mm communication with, each other— piscinae gemillares — probably 
by the vaulted arches which are still to be seen at the extremity of 
Birket Israel. One of these pools was the Probatica, the other, 
Bethesda.” But Robinson (i. 298) says: ‘‘ There is not the slightest 
evidence that can identify them, and the tradition goes no further 
back than the thirteenth century.” With Robinson almost all now 
agree. It is the general opinion that this excavation, 360 feet long, 130 
broad, and 75 deep, was a part of the trench that once separated the 
temple enclosure from the adjoining hill, that it extended to the 
northwest corner of Antonia, and that it was afterward used asa 
reservoir. Fergusson, on the other hand, affirms that it was always 
meant for a reservoir. 

Putting Birket Israel aside, two other pools have been suggested, 
both fed, as supposed, by intermittent springs: the fountain of the 
Virgin, which Robinson adopts; and the fountain on the west side of 
the temple area now called Hamman Esh-Shifa. (See Williams, Holy 
City, ii. 458.) But these are both single pools. and the last has no 
claim to be called intermittent. (Another view in Stewart, Tent and 
Khan, 277 ff., and another in Barclay, 326.) Some have thought that 
these pools may lie under the convent of the Sisters of Zion, a little 


200 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part III. 


to the northwest of the temple. Thus Sir C. Wilson says: ‘‘ These 
accounts seem to indicate that Bethesda was identical with the twin 
pools now known as the Souterrains of the convent. Here are two 
pools in the rock, side by side, with a partition five feet wide between 
them.” (Qt. St., 1872, 147; Qt. St., 1888, 127.) Lightfoot thinks 
Siloam, to whose waters he ascribes supernatural virtues, to be 
Bethesda. In regard to the latter, he says: ‘‘The general silence 
of the Jews about the wondrous virtue of this pool is something 
strange, who, in the abundant praises, and particularly of Jerusalem, 
yet speak not one word, that I have ever found, toward the story of 
Bethesda.” 


1 Souterrains at the Con- 
vent of the Sisters of Zion. 

* Recently discovered 
pools. 

8 Church of St. Anne. 

* Pool Birket Israel. 

5 Haram Area. 

6 Platform of the Dome 
of the Rock. 





PO! JOL 
ip O 





No. 2. PLan oF THE Two Poots. 


But very recent explorations seem to leave little doubt that the 
pool Bethesda is to be found a little northwest of the church of 
St. Anne, and not far from the present St. Stephen’s gate. In 1856, 
the site of this church, perhaps built as early as the seventh century, 
and rebuilt in the twelfth, was given by the Sultan to the French; 
and, clearing up the ruins, they discovered a pool about 100 feet to 
the northwest, lying under a small church, of which a part of the apse 
remains. The pool is 55 feet in length, east and west, and 12 in 
breadth; but perhaps these dimensions should be reversed, the 


Part IIT] POOL OF BETHESDA. 201 


breadth being 55 feet, and the length north and south undetermined, 
since the north wall is wooden, and the pool may have been much 
longer than now appears. It is cut in solid rock to the depth of thirty 
feet, and there are remaining the bases of five pillars cut out of the 
rock. Upon the top of these pillars was formerly a stone roofing, 
and upon these were probably placed the five arches mentioned in the 
Gospel, and which were afterwards destroyed. There are twenty-four 
steps originally cut in the rock, and thus it would be very difficult 
for the lame and feeble to get down to the water. 

Sometime after this discovery a second pool was discovered, lying 
to the west of the first, but no full statement respecting it has yet 
been made. 

It is admitted that these new pools lie in the very place where 
tradition placed them, and where they would now be looked for. 
Says Sir C. Wilson: ‘‘ The pilgrims, in their accounts of Jerusalem, 
generally describe the pool with five arches as near the church of St. 
Anne.” Saewulf (1102 A. D., Early Trav., 41) speaks of the church 
of St. Anne, and near it the pool called in the Hebrew Bethsaida, 
having five porticoes of which the Gospel speaks. (See Maundeville, 
Early Tray., 172: ‘‘In that church is a well, in manner of a cistern, 
which is called Probatica Piscina, which hath five entrances.” Rob., 
i. 331, Qt. St., 1888, 125.) From these and other early testimonies, 
Williams (Holy City, ii. 483) inferred that in this place the pool would 
be found. See Prof. Paine in The Independent, Aug. 16, 1888, who 
regards the ‘‘ identification as complete.” 

There is good reason to believe that the lost pool has been found. 
This is, however, questioned by Conder, apparently upon the ground 
that there is no proof that the water of the pool recently found was 
intermittent. The matter cannot be considered as absolutely deter- 
mined; we must await further investigation. 


As the healing of the impotent man took place on the Sabbath, it 
gave the Jews the desired opportunity of accusing Him of a breach of 
the law; and it seems, indeed, as if the Lord desired to judge their 
whole system of legal righteousness by an emphatic condemnation of 
the interpretation they gave to one of the most important of the com- 
mandments. Lightfoot (in loco) observes: ‘‘ It is worthy our obser- 
yation that our Saviour did not think it enough merely to heal the 
impotent man on the Sabbath day, which was against their rules, but 
farther commanded him to take up his bed, which was much more 
against that rule.” A rigid observance of the Sabbath, even to the 
prohibition of the healing of the sick on that day (Luke xiii. 14), 
was a main element of Pharisaic righteousness, and therefore on this 


202 LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IIL 


point He took issue with them.’ It is said by Pressensé: ‘‘UUtra 
sabbatarianism was the very genius of the Pharisaic religion.” Ac- 
cording to the order we follow, it was the first time that He had healed 
on the Sabbath, and the question how such a work should be regarded, 
whether as lawful or unlawful, came before the ecclesiastical author- 
ties at Jerusalem for their decision. That they decided it to be 
unlawful appears from the angry opposition which subsequent cases 
of healing on that day called forth. 

The grounds of our Lord’s defense (vs. 17-47) must be here con- 
sidered. But first the question arises, Before whom was it spoken? 
There can be little doubt that He was now brought before the San- 
hedrin. (So Licht., Meyer, Lange, Tholuck, Edersheim: ‘‘ The 
masters in Israel”; Farrar: ‘‘summoned before the great Rabbis and 
chief priests.”) That some interval of time elapsed between verses 17 
and 19 is probable. That those before whom the Lord now stood, 
were the same who sent the Deputation from Jerusalem to the Bap- 
tist, appears from verse 33: ‘‘ Ye sent unto John, and he bare wit- 
ness unto the truth.” Thus regarded as spoken before the ecclesias- 
tical rulers and masters, and His final testimony to them before He 
entered upon a new stage of His work, His words demand our special 
attention. 

The right of the Lord to heal on the Sabbath day He puts on the 
ground of His divine Sonship. As the Son, He did nothing of Him- 
self, He did only what His Father did: ‘‘ My Father worketh hitherto, 
and I work.” This defense only angered them the more, because 
‘‘ He made Himself equal with God.” This Sonship they could not 
comprehend; it was not an element that entered, at least distinctly, 
into their Messianic conceptions. There was much confusion in the 
Jewish mind as to the person of the Messiah and His prerogatives, 
most regarding Him as a mere man to be raised up of God for their 
deliverance; and as to the respective works to be wrought by Him and 
by Jehovah at the setting up of the Messianic kingdom. Would the 
Messiah raise the dead and sit in judgment, or would Jehovah? The 
Lord’s words carried the Messianic claims far beyond the general 
belief; they seemed to affirm an equality with Jehovah in His actings 
which was blasphemous. They were also very mysterious. Not 
content with claiming to be the executor of His Father’s will in all 
His works, even the highest — those of resurrection and judgment — 
He adds: ‘‘ As the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to 
the Son to have life in Himself”; thus pointing to Himself as the 
second Adam, to become in resurrection the new and immortal Head 
of the race in the Messianic age. 


1 See Eders., ii. 56 ff., and Appendix 17. 


Part III.] HEALING OF THE IMPOTENT MAN. 203, 


Having stated His relation to His Father and His claim to equal 
honor, He proceeds to state the evidences of His divine mission. He 
accepts the truth that a man’s own testimony is not sufficient. But 
there was other testimony: 1st, that of the Baptist, borne publicly, 
and of which they had official knowledge; 2d, that of His works 
wrought in the name and in the power of the Father, a sufficient proof 
that God had sent Him (see John iii. 2, ‘‘ No man can do these miracles 
that Thou doest except God be with Him”); 3d, that given by the 
Holy Scriptures. Many refer, verse 37, ‘‘the Father Himself which 
hath sent me hath borne witness of me,” to the voice heard at His 
baptism and the descent of the Spirit upon Him. But if evidence to 
the Jews, they must have heard the voice and seen the dove (Matt. iii. 
17, which apparently they did not.) Why then, did they not receive 
Him? Because they had not the love of Godinthem. They had the 
Scriptures and searched them but did not understand them, because 
‘‘His word did not abide in them.” A Messiah not honored by 
men, though honored by God, they could not receive. Coming in 
the name of His Father they rejected Him, but another coming in 
his own name they would receive. It was Moses who accused them 
of unbelief, for he wrote of Him, and disbelieving Moses they dis- 
believed Him. 

The Lord’s justification of Himself before the Sanhedrin based 
upon His divine Sonship and His equality with God, only the more 
inflamed the anger of His enemies. He had broken the law of the 
Sabbath by healing the impotent man on that day, and now He puts 
forth in defense blasphemous claims to be greater than the Messiah, 
even to be equal with God. With such a law-breaker and blas- 
plemer there could be no peace. It was a duty to reject Him, nay 
more, to put Him to death. 

Thus, His presentation of Himself to the nation in its chiefs had 
been unavailing. It only brought out their enmity into fuller mani- 
festation, and showed how unprepared were all — priests, scribes, and 
elders —toreceive Him. The suspicion with which they had regarded 
Him from the first, arising from His peculiar relations to the Bap- 
tist, whom they disliked and whose baptism they refused, had con- 
tinually strengthened; and this His defense brought their hostility 
to a head. Whether any official action was now taken, does not 
appear; but it is not improbable, since the Evangelist a little later 
explains the fact of His ministry in Galilee by saying that He could 
not walk in Judea ‘‘ because the Jews sought to kill Him.” From 
this we may infer that it was then determined upon to seize Him and 
put Him to death if found in Judea, (Compare verses 25-32.) From 


204 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD, [Part ITl 


this province He was thus, by the act of the ecclesiastic=] rulers, 
excluded, 

It is well said by Ellicott (141): ‘‘This is the turning point in 
the Gospel history. Up to this time the preaching of our Lord at 
Jerusalem and in Juda had met with a certain degree of toleration, 
and in many cases even of acceptance; but after this all becomes 
changed. Henceforth the city of David is no meet or safe abode for 
the Son of David; the earthly house of His Heavenly Father is no 
longer a secure hall of audience for the preaching of the Eternal 
Son.” 

It will be well at this point to consider the Lord’s rejection by the 
Jews at Jerusalem, both as to its grounds, and its effects upon His sub- 
sequent ministry. The warrant for this rejection was found in the 
direction given in Deuteronomy xiii. 1-5, by which to test the claims 
of one pretending to a divine mission. The sign or wonder which 
he might give, was not to be of itself sufficient proof; his words and 
teaching must also be taken into account. If he spake anything con- 
trary to the law, the wonder or sign did not compel the people to 
give him credence: rather they must reject him, and if he taught 
idolatry, must put him to death. (See Cohen, Les Deicides, Paris, 
1864.) 

Let us admit that this divine direction was to the Jews of the Lord’s 
day the rule of their action. Jesus appeared before them as one sent of 
God; He was to be tested by a two-fold standard, His words and His 
works. His words were of the first importance, His works were sub- 
ordinate. A man might be a prophet and prophesy and teach, and 
yet work no miracle, as was the case with most of the Old Testament 
prophets. It was their words that proved their divine mission. If 
Jesus had claimed to be simply a prophet, one sent from God with 
a message, He need not work any miracle; His message would 
prove itself by its conformity to the law, and by its spirit. It 
would appeal to the spiritual discernment of the people (John x. 4 ff.). 
Conformity to the old revelation, and a true development of it, was 
the test of the new; and it was in this way that the Baptist attested 
his mission. 

But if He claimed to be the Messiah, He must give the appointed 
signs, for the Messiah’s work was a great step forward; His coming 
brought in anew epoch. The proof that sufficed for a prophet, would 
not suffice for the Messiah. There must be both the word of truth 
and the sign or wonder; and more, He must set up the Messianic king 
dom. 

What, then, might the Jews rightly demand of Jesus as the Mes- 
siah, as to His teaching, and as to His work? 1st, that personally He 


Part IIT.) RETURN TO GALILEE. 205 


would keep the law, and would enforce its universal observance; 2d, 
that He would fulfill the words of the prophets as to the Messianic 
kingdom. These were in themselves just demands, but they implied 
two things: first, that they themselves knew the meaning of the law, 
and kept it without adding to it or taking from it; second, that their 
Messianic beliefs were in conformity to the prophets. But in both 
these respects they failed. They had added to the law many tradi- 
tions, and made it in some points void, and in many others burdensome. 
Therefore, when they came to judge His teachings and acts by it, 
they made Him a transgressor when He was not; He kept the law in 
letter and in spirit, but they condemned Him for not keeping it. 
Their expectations, also, of the Messianic kingdom were not accord- 
ing to the prophets. They did not understand that the people must 
be keeping all God’s ordinances, must be obedient, righteous, holy, 
or they were not ready for the Messiah. The prophets always spoke 
of their captivity and subjection to the nations around them as a 
punishment of their sins, and demanded repentance and humble con- 
fession as a preliminary to their restoration. The Jews in this day 
were in sore bondage under the Roman yoke, but there was no con- 
sciousness of guilt on their part, no true sense of God’s anger with 
them, no humiliation, no confession. Therefore, the first step on 
God’s part was to call them to repentance; without this His promises 
of restoration could not be fulfilled. But they did not hear the Bap- 
tist calling them to repentance. They believed that the Messiah 
would take them in their then condition, organize them, overthrow 
the Romans, and make them a great nation. It was these beliefs and 
expectations by which they tested the Lord, and He did not fulfill 
them. On the contrary, He began by trying to awake in them asense 
ofsin. He did not accept their traditions, but showed them plainly 
what God demanded of them; He did not even assume the title of 
the Messiah, lest He should be understood as confirming their un- 
founded hopes. 

Thus we see that, however right the rule of their action in demand- 
ing conformity to the law and the prophets in the teachings and 
works of one claiming a divine mission, the Jews were in no position 
to apply it to the Lord; they did not know the law, they did not 
understand the prophets, and thus had no right criterion, no stand- 
ard by which to judge His teachings or His works. 

But the Lord was more than the Messiah, He was the Incarnate Son 
of God. Hedid not, indeed, now present Himself as such to the Jews, 
but He could not separate His Person from His office. (See Jouniii. 
13.) He who was the God-Man, was both Prophet and Messiah, The 


206 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part III. 


Jews understood Him to assert a certain filial relation to God as lying 
at the basis of His Messiahship, a kind of equality with the Father. 
(Whether His words here imply partaking of the divine essence, or an 
equality in action and honor, is a matter for theological interpreta- 
tion.) What ground should the Jews take in regard to claims like 
these? They could reject them as absolutely incredible, so palpably 
false as to be self-condemned; or they could compare them with 
what their Scriptures taught them of the Person of the Messiah. 
They took the first. His words were blasphemous, and on this ground 
He was put to death (Matt. xxvi. 63 ff.). 

But it is to be noted that the Lord did not, first of all, reveal the 
mystery of His Person. This revelation could be made only when those 
who had received Him as the Messiah had learned through His teach- 
ing what was involved in the title Sonof God. It was as more than a 
prophet that He presented Himself to the people, for in Him all the pre- 
dictions of the prophets were to be fulfilled. If they, seeing His works 
and hearing His words, received Him as the Messiah, then He could 
lead them on to a fuller knowledge of His Person, and reveal to them 
what had been the purpose of God from the first—that the Word should 
be made flesh and dwell among men. But to those who could not 
rise above the current worldly conceptions of the Messiah, every inti- 
mation which He gave of His divine Sonship was both unintelligible 
and offensive. 

We have also to ask, What was the effect of this rejection by the 
Tulers upon the Lord’s subsequent ministry? That the Galileans were 
ignorant of their hostility toward Him, as shown by their attitude 
from the first, and especially after the healing of the impotent man, 
is not probable. He went down into Galilee to begin His ministry 
there as a proscribed man, one under the ban; whoever accepted Him 
as the Messiah, or even asa prophet, did it knowing that he exposed 
himself to the ill-will and rebukes of his spiritual leaders. Whether 
the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin extended to all parts 
of the land, so that the power ‘‘ to put out of the Synagogue” (John 
ix. 22) was in force in Galilee, we do not certainly know, but proba- 
bly it did. (See Schiirer, ii. 1. 185.) Thus it demanded a high 
measure of faith and much self-sacrifice to confess Him as the Mes- 
siah. Ina real sense every one who followed Him must take up His 
cross. The call to leave all and follow Him, even if attended by no 
civil punishments, could be heard only by those over whom truth was 
all powerful, and who could say with St. Peter, ‘‘Thou hast the 
words of eternal life.” We may find in the records of the Galilean 
ministry, how much it cost to be known as one of His adherents, 


Part III.] RETURN TO GALILEE, 207 


although at the first there was a strong popular feeling in His 
favor. 

With this miracle, the healing of the impotent man, the Lord’s 
Judzan work, or the first stage of His ministry, came to an end. 
As Jesus now left Judea, and only returned to it after a consid- 
erable interval, and then only for very brief periods at the feasts, His 
enemies in that province had little opportunity to arrest Him. We 
know, however, that in point of fact they attempted to do so at the 
very first feast He attended (John vii. 32). So long as He was in 
Galilee, all they could do to Him was to watch His proceedings there, 
and seize upon every occasion that presented itself to destroy His 
reputation, and hinder His work. How zealously they labored to 
this end will appear as our history proceeds. 





ri Ge 





PART IV. 


FROM THE IMPRISONMENT TO THE DEATH OF JOHN THE BAP 
TIST ; OR FROM APRIL, 781, TO MARCH, 782. A. D. 28, 29. 


The Lord's Ministry in Galilee to the Death of the Baptist. 


Of the general character of the Lord’s work in Galilee, as 
distinguished from His work in Judza, we have already spoken, 
when considering the divisions of His ministry. It is in the light 
of this distinction that certain remarkable, and to some readers 
perplexing, features of the synoptical Gospels find their explana- 
tion. Asis patent upon their narratives, they relate nothing that 
the Lord did prior to John the Baptist’s imprisonment. Only 
from the Evangelist John do we learn that His field of labor, till 
the Baptist was imprisoned, was Judea. Here His time was 
spent from the Passover of 780 till the December following, and 
if He resided in Galilee a few weeks till the feast (John v. 1), 
as He seems to have done, this was in consequence of the enmity 
of the Jews, and the time was apparently spent in seclusion. 
So far as the narratives of Matthew, Mark, and Luke go, the 
beginning of His public labors is to be dated from the time 
when, the Baptist being cast into prison, He went from Judza 
into Galilee. They allassume that He was in Judea up to this 
time, this being the province to which His early labors were 
confined. The reasons why they pass over in silence this first 
year of His ministry, and why they bring His work in Galilee 
into such close connection with the Baptist, we now proceed to 
consider. 

The silence of the Synoptists respecting the Judean work of 
the Lord will not appear strange, if we recall the purpose and 
result of that work. As we have seen, John, after the bap- 
tism of Jesus, was visited by a Deputation of priests and Levites 
from Jerusalem, to whom he bore formal witness that the Messiah 

(209) 


210 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


had come (John i. 19-28). Perhaps, also, he pointed out Jesus 
to them in person. It was now a question distinctly before the 
ecclesiastical rulers, Would they receive Jesus thus pointed out 
to them as the Christ, or reject Him? As they took no steps to 
seek Him, thus showing their disregard of the Baptist’s testi- 
mony, at the first feast after this testimony He appeared in the 
temple, and there assumed authority to purge it. He also 
worked miracles, and taught, and many believed in Him as 
one sent from God. Still the ecclesiastical rulers did not receive 
Him. He therefore begins to baptize; but they do not come 
to His baptism ; the gathering to Him of the people only aug- 
ments their hostility; and they seek to cast impediments in His 
way by sowing dissensions between His disciples and those of 
John. Asthey will not come to receive baptism, or be taught by 
Him, no further step can now be taken in the regular develop- 
ment of His Messianic work. He, therefore, ceases to baptize, and 
retires from Judea. Still the time is not yet come for Him to 
begin His work in Galilee, for the Baptist is at liberty, and 
through his witness and labors the rulers may yet be brought to 
repentance, and the nation be saved. He will wait till His fore- 
runner has finished his work ere He commences His new work in 
' Galilee. Once more He presents Himself in Jerusalem at a feast, 
and works a miracle, but is called a blasphemer, and His life is 
endangered ; and John’s ministry also comes to a sudden and 
untimely end. The Baptist is shut up in prison, and can 
bear no further witness. There is now no place for the Lord 
in Judea. All the labors of the Baptist and His own labors 
had been unavailing to turn the hearts of those in authority, and 
to insure His reception as the Messiah. By their own unbelief, 
those who sat in Moses’ seat, the priests and Levites, had made it 
impossible that He could use them in His service, and continu- 
ing to reject Him they themselves must be rejected. The 
Mosaic institutions must be set aside, and their priesthood cease ; 
the defiled temple be destroyed, and the Christian Church be 
founded. 

It is here that we find the essential distinction between the 
Lord’s work in Judza and that in Galilee. The former had ref- 
erence to the Jewish people in their corporate capacity, a nation 


Part IV.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE. 211 


in covenant with God; He addressed Himself to the nation as 
represented in its ecclesiastical rulers, and aimed to produce in 
them that sense of sin, and that true repentance, which were indis- 
pensable to His reception. The latter was based upon the fact 
that the ecclesiastical rulers of the Jews did not receive Him, 
and had sought to kill Him ; and that, therefore, if they persisted 
in their wickedness, God was about to cast them out of their 
peculiar relations to Him, and establish a church, of which the 
elect of all nations should be members (Matt. vill. 11, 12). Go- 
ing into Galilee, the Lord will gather there a body of disciples, 
who shall bear witness to Him before the nation; but who, if this 
testimony is unavailing, will serve as the foundations of the new 
institutions resting upon the New Covenant. : 

Thus the departure from Judza into Galilee does not imply 
that the Lord regarded this rejection of Himself by the Jews as 
final, and that nothing remained but to lay new foundations and 
choose a new priesthood. He will leave Juda, but after a time He 
will return. He will to the last make every effort to save them 
(Matt. xxiii. 37). His work in Galilee still has reference to national 
salvation through the faith of those who should believe on Him 
there; and to this end, as we shall see, He sent out the seventy 
at the close of the Galilean ministry. If, however, the nation 
will not hear them, then from among them He will select those 
who shall take the place of the priests of the Aaronic line, and 
be builders and rulers under Him —the Stone which the builders 
had refused, but now become the Head of the corner. 

Thus it will not appear strange that the Synoptists, writing 
after all these events had developed themselves, and when the Jews 
had lost their high place by disobedience, and the new Covenant 
had been established, should pass over in silence the Lord’s 
Judean work. It was, indeed, a matter of highest interest to the 
Jews, but regarded in its relations to the Christian Church, its 
Mention was comparatively unimportant; and the Synoptists 
could well commence their narratives with that work in Galilee, 
which, looking forward to the future, was already developing it- 
self so widely and powerfully. It was comparatively of little mo 
ment that their Gentile readers should know, in detail, that the 
Lord first began His labors in Judza, and that, after a few months. 


212 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


He was compelled to abandon them through the enmity of the 
rulers; since all Christians knew in general that He was finally 
rejected by them, and suffered death at their hands. But the 
Galilean work was of the highest moment, as it marked where the 
dividing line began between the old and the new, between Moses 
and Christ. And this may also explain their silence in respect 
to the feasts which the Lord attended while in Galilee, and are men- 
tioned by John. Any transient work at Jerusalem, addressing 
itself especially to the hierarchy, had had no important bearing 
upon the great result, as time had shown, and need not therefore 
be mentioned by them. 

Thus the silence of the Synoptists respecting the early work 
of Jesus in Judea is satisfactorily explained; and we also see why 
the imprisonment of the Baptist is made so prominent in their 
narratives. It marks the time when He left Judwa for Galilee, 
and is thus the great turning point in His ministry. So long as 
John was free to prosecute his work of calling the nation to 
repentance, He could take no steps looking forward to the es- 
tablishment of new institutions. Hecould not begin to preach 
or teach in Galilee. But John in prison could no more prepare 
His way, could no more testify of Him to the nation, or ad- 
minister the baptism of repentance. The voice of the forerunner 
thus silenced, Jesus, departing to Galilee, can there begin Him- 
self to preach, and to gather disciples, and to prepare them for 
their future work. 

As the primary object of the ministry in Galilee was to 
gather disciples, the Lord directs His teachings and works to 
that end. Hence, His visits to all parts of the land, His use of 
the synagogues for preaching, His teachings in the streets, in 
the fields, upon the sea-shore, wherever the people gather to Him. 
He speaks to all, that whoever has ears to hear may hear. 
Hence, also, His readiness to heal all who may come unto Him, 
that the faith which the word could not draw forth, might be 
drawn forth by the work. Thus by degrees He gathered 
around Him the most spiritually-minded and receptive of the 
Galileans, and of the inhabitants of the adjacent regions. From 
these in due time He chose a small body of men whom He kept near 
Himself, and to whom He explained what was obscure in His 


Part IV.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE. 213 


public discourses, as they were able to hear; and these, after He 
had instructed them, He sent forth to be witnesses to the peo- 
ple at large. 

This work of Jesus in Galilee, gathering and educating His 
disciples, continued from the Passover of 781 till the Feast of 
Tabernacles in 782, or a period of about one year and six months. 
The death of the Baptist, which we place in the spring of 
782, had an important bearing upon His labors, and divides this 
Galilean ministry into two parts, which are easily distinguish- 
able from each other. The grounds of this distinction will be 
noted hereafter. Our present period ends with the Baptist’s 
death. The important events that mark its progress will be 
noticed as we proceed. 


THE PROVINCE OF GALILEE. 


This departure of the Lord into Galilee to make this the field of 
His labors, offers us a fit opportunity to describe it in its general 
features.’ Palestine proper, west of Jordan, according to the latest 
explorations, has about 6,000 square miles, and Galilee something 
less than a third of this. In the Lord’s day it was very populous. 
Josephus (War, iii. 3. 2) says, ‘‘the towns were numerous, and the 
multitude of villages so crowded with men, owing to the fecundity 
of the soil, that the smallest of them contained about 15,000 inhabi- 
tants”; and in his Life (xlv. 4), incidentally mentions that ‘‘ there 
were 204 cities and villages,” thus giving it a population of more 
than 3,000,000. Almost all writers agree that this is an exageera- 
tion, but Merrill thinks the number not incredible. Making all 
allowance for this, Galilee must have been very full of people. 
(See Raumer, 81, who cites Dion Cassius as stating that in the war 
under Hadrian, 985 villages of the Jews were laid waste.) Nor 
were these towns and villages inert and sluggish, but full of life and 
energy. The richness of the soil abundantly repaid the labors of the 
cultivators, and it was a thoroughfare through which passed great 
quantities of merchandise from Damascus and the East to the Medi- 
terranean, and from the coast to the interior. The lake of Galilee was 
covered with ships engaged in fishing and traffic, and its shores were 
dotted with cities and villages. Tarichexe, at its lower end, con- 
tained about 40,000 inhabitants (Josephus, War, iii. 10. 10), and 
there were other cities probably not less populous. In a region so 


1See “Galilee at the time of Christ,” by Rev. S. Merrill, LL.D. ; Conder, Hand 
Book ; Stanley, Sinai and Palestine ; Schirer, I. ii., and Bible Dictionaries. 


214 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


fertile by nature, and inhabited by an industrious people, there could 
not be wanting many rich families ; and to this the Gospels bear wit- 
ness, as also the ruins of buildings, palaces, and tombs. It was a 
common saying, quoted by Edersheim: ‘‘If a person wishes to be 
rich, let him go north; if he wants to be wise, let him come south.” 
Although patriotic and courageous, there was for a long time little 
of political disturbance, Galilee standing in this respect in striking con- 
trast with Judea under the Roman governors. After Herod the 
Great’s death, Galilee and Persea were allotted by the emperor to his 
son Herod Antipas, who ruled there during the Lord’s whole life. 
This shows that his general administration, whatever his personal 
character, was not cruel or unjust. But the spirit of nationalism was 
stronger in Galilee than in Judea, and any tidings of a coming Mes- 
siah were more gladly received. ; 
It is generally said that Galilee, being surrounded on the east and 
south and west by alien peoples, had in it a large foreign and heathen 
element, and that its inhabitants were much less strict in the obsery- 
ance of the law than those in Juda, and were therefore looked down 
upon by the latter, and treated with disdain (‘‘ out of Galilee ariseth no 
prophet,” John vii. 52). Their language was not so pure (Matt. xxvi. 
78), nor were they learned in the law. But Merrill thinks these charges 
of ignorance and of irreligion unfounded, and denies that there was 
so large a heathen element as is asserted, and their language so 
corrupt. Conder (Hand-Book, 313) agrees with him, and affirms 
that although ‘‘the Talmudic writers speak with contempt of the 
Galileans, they do not say anything which would lead to the sup- 
position that the Galileans were less orthodox than the inhabitants 
of Juda.” But we may infer from the statements of Josephus that, 
while the bulk of the Galilezans were Jews, there were many Pheeni- 
cians, Arabians, Syrians, and some Greeks among them; and if so, it 
was natural, perhaps inevitable, that there should be a less strict 
observance of the law than in Judea, more freedom from traditional 
bonds, more openness to hear new things (see Eders. i. 223 ff.). 
_ It was to this province that the Lord went when driven from 
Judea by the ecclesiastical rulers. He must enter upon His new 
work of gathering disciples, and here He would find freedom of moye- 
ment. The Sanhedrin had no civil jurisdiction in Galilee, and the 
king was not likely to interfere. Indeed, we know that for a con- 
siderable time he took no notice at all of the Lord and His work, 
and if he heard of Him, looked upon Him as one of the Rabbis who 
was gathering disciples around Him, and His work without political 
significance. Not till the Baptist’s death did he desire to see Him; 


Part IV.] THE BAPTIST’S IMPRISONMENT. 215 


and thus the Lord, unmolested by the authorities, —for the alliance 
of the Pharisees and Herodians, or partisans of Herod (Mark iii. 6), 
was apparently without the knowledge of the king, —could visit 
all parts of the province, and teach openly in all places. 

That the Pharisees and Scribes of Galilee stood to the Lord from 
the first, in an attitude of suspicion and dislike, which gradually be- 
came one of positive hostility, appears from the Synoptists, and will 
be noticed more particularly as we examine them. The nationalists, 
or those opposed to all foreign domination, affirming that God alone 
was their king, and who are called by Josephus the Zealots, do not 
seem at this time to have been politically organized, but their princi- 
ples were spreading among the people, and from them the Lord took 
one of His apostles. 


Aprit, 781. A.D. 28. 


The Baptist being now imprisoned, the Lord leaves Judea Marv. iv. 12. 
and goes into Galilee to begin Ilis ministry there. In His Marxi. 14, 15. 
progress He comes to Nazareth and teaches in its synagogue. LUKE iv. 14, 15. 
His words enraging the people, and His life being in danger, Luxe iv. 16-31. 
He leaves Nazareth, and going to Capernaum there takes up Marv. iy. 12-17. 
His abode. 


The manner in which John relates what the Lord did in 
Galilee up to the time of the feast (v. 1) shows that he regarded 
Judza as the proper field of His labors during this period, and 
His works in Galilee as only exceptional. Only two miracles 
were wrought in Galilee during this period, and both when He 
was at Cana (John ii. 1; iv. 46). Of the first, the Evangelist says: 
“This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and 
manifested forth His glory;” of the second: “This is again the 
second miracle that Jesus did, when He was come out of Judzxa 
into Galilee.” Both these miracles were wrought under peculiar 
circumstances, and for special ends, not in the ordinary course of 
His ministry. Those wrought by Him in Jerusalem at the first 
Passover (John ii. 23, compare ili. 2) are merely alluded to, al- 
though they seem to have been of a striking character; but 
these are specified as wrought by Jesus coming out of Judea, 
the proper place of His ministry, into Galilee where His minis- 
try had not yet begun, John not being imprisoned. 

It is to be remembered that Galilee had been spoken of 
several centuries before the Saviour’s birth by the prophet 


216 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


Isaiah (ix. 1, 2) as that part of the Holy Land to be especially 
blessed by His labors. It had been the part least esteemed, not 
only because in the division of the kingdom it was joined to 
Israel in opposition to Judah, but also as especially exposed 
to foreign invasion, and had in fact been repeatedly con- 
quered. Here was the greatest admixture of foreign elements, 
the natural result of these conquests, and hence the name, 
“Galilee of the Gentiles.” The prophet mentions the two tribes 
of Zebulon and Napthali as peculiarly depised; and within the 
bounds of the first was Nazareth, and within the bounds of the 
second was Capernaum. How wonderfully this prophecy, so 
dark in its literal interpretation, was fulfilled, the history of the 
Lord’s ministry shows. His own in Judwa and Jerusalem 
would not walk in His light, and thus it was that, in “ Galilee of 
the Gentiles, the people which sat in darkness saw great light.” 
To the prediction of Isaiah, the Evangelist Matthew, accord- 
ing to his custom, calls the attention of his readers, and affirms 
that in Galilee thus prophetically marked out the preaching of 
the Lord actually began (iv. 17). ‘From that time,” that is, 
from the imprisonment of John, and the departure into Galilee 
that immediately followed it, ‘‘ Jesus began to preach,” etc. “His 
earlier appearance in Juda, though full of striking incidents 
and proofs of His divine legation, was preliminary to His 
ministry or preaching, properly so called, which now began.”* 
Luke connects His teaching in the synagogue with His return 
into Galilee (iv. 14-15). That His enemies at Jerusalem re- 
garded His labors as first taking positive form and character in 
Galilee, appears from their accusation (Luke xxiii. 5), “He 
stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning 
from Galilee to this place.” (See also the words of Peter, Acts 
x. 37, “That word which was published throughout all Judza, 
and began from Galilee.”) And as God had ordered that 
Galilee should be the chief theatre of His teaching, so He 
providentially overruled the political arrangements of the time 
that He could labor without hindrance, since the tetrarch 
Herod Antipas did not trouble himself concerning any ecclesi- 
astica: movements that did not disturb the public peace. And 


1 Alexander, in loco; so Greswell, ii. 274; Stier, on Luke iv. 18. 


Part IV.] THE BAPTIST’S IMPRISONMENT. 217 


here, also, the people were less under the influence of the 
hierarchy, and more open to His words. 

If we are right in putting the imprisonment of the Baptist 
just before the unnamed feast, it is the return to Galilee after 
this feast that is meant by the Synoptists (Matt. iv. 12; Mark i. 
14, 15; Luke iy. 14, 15.) Comparing their account of what fol- 
lowed this return, with that given by John (iv. 43-54), we find 
full proof that they refer to different periods. According to the 
latter, Jesus went to Galilee, not to begin public labors but to 
find retirement. The prophet, as arule, having no honor in his 
own country, He might well hope to pass the time there in seclu- 
sion, without attracting public attention, till the issue of John’s 
ministry was determined. He did not indeed find the privacy 
which He sought, because the Galileans had been eye witnesses 
of what He had done at Jerusalem, and were favorably inclined 
toward Him. Very soon after His return a nobleman from 
Capernaum sought His aid; but aside from this, there is no in- 
dication that He performed any miracles or engaged in any teach- 
ing. No disciples are spoken of as with Him, nor any crowds 
of people. Nor when He goes up to the feast (v. 1) does He 
appear to have been attended by any disciples. On the other 
hand, according to the Synoptists, so soon as He heard of John’s 
imprisonment He began His labors in Galilee, very early gather- 
ing again His disciples, and working miracles, and teaching in all 
the synagogues. His fame spread immediately through the 
whole region, and wherever He went great crowds followed 
Him. 


Some find difficulty in reconciling the Synoptists with John ii. 
12; iv. 46, because the former say that Jesus went to Capernaum to 
begin His ministry after the imprisonment of the Baptist. But these 
earlier visits they might well pass over in silence, as not at all affecting 
the general fact that the field of labor during the first part of His min- 
istry was Juda, and not Galilee. The first of these visits to Galilee 
was before the first Passover, and of short duration; the second was 
after the work in Judea had been interrupted, and was also brief, 
and neither of them was marked by public labors. He began to 
preach in Galilee only when He had ended for the time His work in 
Juda, and this was after the imprisonment of the Baptist and the at- 
tempt of the Jews on His own life (John v. 18). 


10 a 


218 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV, 


From Matthew’s words (iv. 13): “Leaving Nazareth, He 
came and dwelt in Capernaum,” we may infer that up to this 
time Nazareth was his fixed place of residence, although the two 
miracles — the change of water into wine and the healing of the 
nobleman’s son — were wrought by Him being at Cana. If the 
words are taken in their strict sense, we may say that leay- 
ing Jerusalem after the unnamed feast He went first to 
Nazareth, where He taught in the synagogue, and thence to 
Capernaum. Mark says only in general terms that “He came 
into Galilee.” Luke (iv. 16, 31) speaks as if He went from 
Nazareth to Capernaum. Are we to assume that he is narrating 
chronologically, and that the Lord’s Galilean ministry, His first 
teaching in a synagogue, began at Nazareth? This may be 
doubted. We find in this Evangelist (iv. 15, 16) a brief but 
comprehensive statement of His work in Galilee, that His fame 
went abroad, and that “He taught in their synagogues, being 
glorified of all.” Is the mention of His teaching at Nazareth 
which immediately follows, an instance illustrating the general 
character of His ministry, and without regard to the time when 
it occurred ? (So Keil, and many.) 

Before we answer this question, we must ask whether the 
Lord twice visited and preached in Nazareth? As Matthew 
(xiii. 53-58) and Mark (vi. 1-6) both speak of a visit of Jesus to 
Nazareth, but apparently at a later period, it is a question 
whether this visit can be identified with that mentioned by Luke 
(iv. 16-30), or whether they are to be regarded as distinct." 
There are several points of likeness, but not more than would 
naturally exist in two visits made under such peculiar circum- 
stances. In both, His words excite the astonishment, not un- 
mixed with envy, of His fellow-townsmen; and recalling to mind 
His origin and His education amongst themselves, and His fam- 
ily, whose members they knew, they are offended at His pro- 
phetic claims. In both, He repeats the proverb, so strikingly 
applicable, that “a prophet is not without honor save in his own 
country;” but with this difference, that at the second visit He 


1 Opinions of jrecent inquirers are about equally divided. In fayorof their iden- 
tity are Lange, Alford, Bucher, Friedlieb, Lichtenstein, Farrar, Bleek, Weiss; against 
it, Meyer, Stier, Robinson, Tischendorf, Wieseler, Krafft, Townsend, Ellicott, Keil on 
Matt. xiii. 54 ff., Godet; 4:.c, hesitatingly, Edersheim. 


~~. oo 


oe 


Part 1V.] JESUS TEACHES AT NAZARETH. 219 


adds, with apparent reference to His brothers and sisters, ‘and 
among his own kin and in his own house.” On the other hand, 
the noints of difference are more numerous, and more plainly 
ma:ked. In the former visit, He is alone, in the latter, He is 
accompanied by His disciples (Mark vi. 1). In the former, He 
is attacked by the enraged populace, and escapes through super- 
natural aid the threatened death; in the latter, thongh He mar- 
velled at their unbelief, He continued there for a time, and healed 
a few sick folk. In the former, “ passing through the midst of 
them He went His way and came to Capernaum, a city of Gali- 
lee”; inthe latter, He “ went round about the villages teaching.” 
The mention of the healing of the sick by Mark clearly shows 
the visits to have been distinct, for it could not have taken place 
before His first teaching in the synagogue on the Sabbath, and 
immediately afterward He was obliged to flee from their rage. 

But if we find two distinct visits to Nazareth, this does not 
show that this in Luke was before He went to Capernaum, and 
the first instance of His teaching in a synagogue. This will de- 
pend upon the meaning of Luke’s words (iv. 16), “And as His 
custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, 
and stood up for to read.” Was it His custom, while yet living 
at Nazareth and before His ministry began, not only to attend 
the service but to take part init? There were two parts of the 
service in which He may have assisted — the offering of the 
prayers; the reading of the Scriptures, first the Law, then the 
Prophets; and the exposition or sermon following, if any was 
made. But those who took part were asked to do so by the presi- 
dent or superintendent of the service, and none did so but those 
thus asked. (Asto the mode of conducting the service, see Hders., 
i, 439 ff.) Whether the Lord may not, as a private man, have 
offered the prayers and read the Scriptures, we cannot say, but 
that He had never preached, may be fairly inferred from verse 
22: “They wondered at the gracious words which proceeded 
out of His mouth.” It certainly had not been His custom to 
expound the Scriptures or preach at Nazareth ; and that He was 
now called up to read and expound, was doubtless owing to the 
reputation He had already acquired as a teacher (John iii. 2; 
Hders., i. 445). 


220 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


It seems, therefore, better to confine “as His custom was ” 
either to His attendance on the synagogue service, or to inter- 
pret it by the general statement in the verse preceding: “And 
He taught in their synagogues,” 7. e., He did at Nazareth only 
what He was accustomed to do elsewhere. (So Bleek in loco.) 

If we accept this visit at Nazareth as before His settlement 
at Capernaum, how are the words, verse 23, to be understood 
‘«‘ Whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do here also 
in thy country” ? This implies that He had already wrought 
miracles in Capernaum. Some (as Ebrard and Edersheim) ex: 
plain this by saying that this may refer to the healing of the noble- 
man’s son, which took place at Capernaum, though Jesus Him- 
self was at Cana; others (as Godet), that He wrought some mira- 
cles when earlier at Capernaum (John ii. 12) though they are not 
mentioned ; and others still, that He may have gone to Nazareth 
at this time by way of Capernaum, and wrought some miracles 
on the way. It must be admitted that these explanations are 
not wholly satisfactory; and the natural inference is, that this 
visit at Nazareth was, if distinct from and earlier than that in 
Matthew and Mark, still after the beginning of His labors in 
Capernaum. 

A chronological datum has been found by Bengel in the fact 
that the passage of Isaiah read by the Lord (Luke iv. 18, 19) 
was that appointed to be read on the morning of the great day 
of Atonement.’ But it is by no means certain that such was 
the order at this time; nor does it appear whether Jesus read 
the passage appointed for the day, or that to which He opened 
intentionally or under divine direction. Some of the fathers, 
from verse 19, where mention is made of ‘the acceptable year 
of the Lord,” inferred that His ministry continued but a single 
year.” That no definite period of time is meant, sufficiently 
appears, however, from the context (Is. lxi. 2). 

The city of Nazareth, being built upon the side of a steep 
hill, presents several precipices down which a person might be 


1 See also McKnight, Har. in loco. Edersheim, i. 444, objects that the modern 
Lectionary readings from the prophets are not the same asin the time of Christ; and 
that in the modern lectionary this part of Isaiah is not read at all. 

2 See Wieseler, Syn., 272, who makes an interval of a year from this Sabbath to 
His death. 


Part 1V.] JESUS REJECTED AT NAZARETH. 221 


east. It is said that the ancient city stood higher on the slope 
than the modern. That which has for many years been pointed 
out as the place where the attempt was made on the Lord’s life, 
and called the Mount of Precipitation, lies some two miles from 
the village. It isa conspicuous object from the plain of Esdraelon, 
which it overlooks. Its distance from the village is a sufficient 
proof that it cannot have been the real scene of the event. The 
cliff which travellers have generally fixed upon as best answer- 
ing to the narrative, lies just back of the Maronite church, and 
is some thirty or forty feet in height.’ 

The wrath of the people, so unprovoked, and their effort to 
kill Him, seem sufficiently to justify the opinion of Nathanael in 
regard to Nazareth. From this incident it is plain that they 
were fierce and cruel, and ready from mere envy to imbrue their 
hands in the blood of one who had lived among them, a neighbor 
and a friend, all His life. It is not improbable, however, that 
they may long have been conscious that, though dwelling among 
them, He was not of them, and thus a secret feeling of dislike 
and ill-will may have been slumbering in their hearts. This is 
the only instance recorded of the Lord’s reading in a synagogue. 
Elsewhere it is said that He preached in the synagogues, per- 
mission being everywhere given Him, apparently in virtue of 
His prophetic claims. (Compare Acts xiii. 15.) 

Thus rejected at Nazareth, Jesus departs to Capernaum. 
The natural interest which all feel in a place which was so long 
the Lord’s residence and the central point of His labors, leads us 
to inquire with some minuteness as to its site. As Bethsaida 
and Chorazin were adjacent cities, joined with Capernaum in the 
same high privileges, and falling under the same condemnation 
(Matt. xi. 21; Luke x. 13), and their sites are subjects of dis- 
pute, we shall embrace them in this topographical inquiry ; and 
we begin with some account of the Sea of Galilee upon whose 
shores they stood. 


The sea of Galilee is formed by the waters of the Jordan, which 


1 Robinson, ii. 285; Ritter, Theil, xvi. 744. Van der Velde, Journey, ii. 385, thinks 
that this cannot be the place, and supposes that the precipice where the Saviour’s life 
was threatened, has crumbled away from the effect of earthquakes and other causes. 
Conder, Tent Life, i. 140, suggests that the brow of the hill may now be hidden under 
cne of the houses. 


222 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. {Part IV. 


enter at the northern end and flow out at the southern. Its shape is 
that of an irregular oval, or pear-shaped, somewhat broader at the 
upper part, it is twelve and a quarter miles in length, its greatest 
breadth six and three-quarters; its lowest depth 106 feet. The 
water is clear and sweet, and is used for drinking by the inhabitants 
along its shore, many of whom ascribe to it medicinal qualities. It 
is 650 feet lower than the Mediterranean, and was once thought to fill 
the crater of an extinct volcano, and there are now hot springs on its 
western shore; but Col. Wilson (B. E., iii. 170) says that there does 
not appear to be anything volcanic in its origin. The west shore ot 
the lake is more precipitous, except at one or two points, than that 
of the east. Lying so low and surrounded with hills, those on the 
east nearly 2,000 feet above the level of the sea, and seamed with 
deep ravines down which the winds sweep with great violence, it is 
very much exposed to sudden furious storms. (Stanley, 361; Rob., 
ii. 426.) McGregor (Rob Roy. 508) says: ‘‘ On the sea of Galilee the 
wind has a singular force and suddenness, and this is no doubt be- 
cause the sea is so deep in the world that the sun rarefies the air 
in it enormously, and the wind speeding swift along a level plateau, 
till suddenly it meets the huge gap in the way, and tumbles down 
here irresistible.” The sea swarms with fish, and its waters in the 
Lord’s day were covered with boats. At that time its shores were 
densely peopled, nine cities being mentioned and many villages; 
now are found only the city of Tiberias and a collection of hovels at 
Magdala. 

Nearly midway on the west side of the lake is “the land of 
Gennesaret ” (Matt. xiv. 34; Mark vi. 53; Jos., War, iii. 10. 8). It 
is made by a recession of the hills from the shore, and forms a seg- 
ment of a circle, a crescent shape, being, according to Col. Wilson 
(Recov. Jer., 264), two and a half miles long, and one mile broad. 
It begins on the south just above the village Mejdel or Magdala, and 
extends northward to the point where the promontory of Khan Min- 
yeh comes down to the water. ‘‘ The plain is almost a paralellogram, 
shut in on the north and south sides by steep cliffs nearly a thousand 
feet high. On the west the hills recede not quite so precipitously. 
The shore line is gently embayed, and the beach is pearly white, one 
mass of triturated fresh water shells, and edged by a fringe of the ex- 
quisitely lovely oleander.” (Tristram, B. P., 273.) It is well 
watered, two fountains arising in it large and copious, and several 
permanent streams flow from the hills west and north, whose waters 
were carried right and left by aqueducts to irrigate the plain. (Rob., 
ii. 402; Baedeker, 370.) 


% 
% 
> 


wey 





NORTHWESTERN COAST OF THE SEA OF GALILEE, WITH THE PLAIN OF GENNESARET 
AND THE TOWNS LYING IN IT AND NEAR IT. 


(223) 


224 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


In or near the land of Gennesaret was the city of Capernaum. Its 
site has been long the subject of dispute. Neither the statements 
of the Evangelists, nor of Josephus, nor of the early fathers and 
travellers, are so definite that we can determine from them the exact 
spot; and even now moder ntravellers and Palestinian explorers who 
have carefully examined all possible sites along the lake, are by no 
means agreed in their conclusions. All, therefore, that we can now 
do, is to give a summary of the question as it stands in the light of 
the most recent investigations. 

It is known from the gospels (Matt. iv. 18; ix. 1; xiii. 1; Mark 
ii. 138; John vi. 17) that Capernaum was built on the sea shore, and 
it appears from a comparison of John vi. 17 with Matt. xiv. 34 and 
Mark vi. 53 that it was either in or near ‘‘the land of Gennesaret.” 
As to its position we have more distinct information incidentally 
given us by Josephus, who, speaking of the plain of Gennesaret, 
says: ‘‘It is irrigated by a highly fertile spring called Capharnaum 
by the people of the country.” (War, iii. 10. 8.) Elsewhere (Life, 
72) he speaks of a village on the lake called Cepharnome to which 
he, having been wounded in a skirmish, was taken. We can scarcely 
doubt that the fountain he speaks of as called Capharnaum, took 
its name from the city, and that the two were not far from each 
other. Can this spring be identified with either of those now water- 
ing the plain? F 

Josephus mentions as a peculiarity of the spring of Capernaum 
that ‘‘it was thought by some to be a vein of the Nile from its 
producing a fish similar to the coracin of the lake of Alexandria.” 
Are such fish now found in any fountain of Gennesaret? The 
southernmost fountain lying near the western range of hills, 
is the Round Fountain— Ain Mudawarah — which is described by 
Robinson as forming ‘‘an oval reservoir more than 50 feet in diameter; 
the water is perhaps two feet deep, beautifully limpid and sweet, 
bubbling up and flowing out rapidly in a large stream to water the 
plain below.” Here Tristram (Land of Israel, 46), found the coracin 
or cat-fish, and was therefore inclined to regard it as the fountain 
of Capernaum, but he afterwards found the same fish in the lake. 
Fishermen of the coast told McGregor (Rob Roy, 359) that this fish 
is found in summer time in other fountains, and is always to be found 
in the lake; and afterward he saw one in the hot spring of Tabigah. 
The presence of the coracin, therefore, in a fountain ceases to be 
any certain proof that it is the fountain mentioned by Josephus. 

Assuming that the fountain was near the city, we must further 
inquire as to the existence of any ruins in its neighborhood. Robin- 


Part IV.] SITE OF CAPERNAUM. 225 


son, who searched for them at the Round Fountain, says : ‘‘ There 
was nothing that would indicate that any town or village had ever 
occupied the spot.” And Col. Wilson says (B. E., iii. 281): ‘‘No 
Tuins of any consequence have been discovered in this neighborhood”; 
and with them Dr. Thomson agrees. But, on the other hand, the 
claims of the Round Fountain to be the fountain of Capernaum are 
strenuously defended by DeSaulcy (ii. 423), who asserts that he found 
distinct traces of the ruins of a city upon the adjacent hills. McGre- 
gor says, that ‘‘ various ruins are found not far from the fountain, 
though not distinct.” The absence of ruins, though admitted by 
Caspari, proves to his mind nothing against the former existence of a 
city there, as it might have been destroyed by an earthquake. (Matt. 
xi. 23.) 

Dismissing, then, the claim of the Round Fountain, because of the 
absence of any ruins in its neighborhood, and because to-day it has 
very few advocates, we proceed to the next fountain in the plain, 
which some regard as the fountain of Capernaum. This is called Ain 
et-Tin —the fountain of the fig-tree—and rises near Khan Minyeh 
at the northwestern extremity of the plain, where the western hills 
approach the lake shore. Robinson (ii. 403) thus describes it: 
“‘Between the Khan and the shore a large fountain gushes out from 
beneath the rocks, and forms a brook flowing into the lake a few 
rods distant. Near by are several other springs. Our guide said 
these springs were brackish. . . . Along the lake is a tract of 
luxuriant herbage occasioned by the spring.” McGregor (Rob Roy, 
355) speaks of it as a perennial fountain, pouring out from the rock 
about eight feet higher than the lake. The water descends into a 
long marshy lagoon, into which he paddled his canoe from the lake, 
and searched for some trace of a building, but found none. The 
water is strongly brackish, and is not used by the inmates of the 
Khan near by. 

That this fountain cannot be that mentioned by Josephus is plain 
from the fact that it could not irrigate the plain. ‘‘ Most of the land of 
Gennesaret,” says McGregor, ‘‘is above the level of the fountain 
head.” Robinson says: ‘‘The lake, when full, sets up nearly or 
quite to the fountain”; and Thomson, that ‘‘it comes out close to 
the lake and on a level with its surface.” It is impossible, therefore, 
that it could ever have had any value for purposes of irrigation. 
Nor are there any ruins of importance yet discovered near this 
fountain such as would naturally mark the site of a city like Caper- 
naum. They are thus spoken of by Robinson when he first saw them: 
‘A few rods south of the Khan and fountain is a low mound or swel), 


10* 


226 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part LV. 


with ruins occupying a considerable circumference. The few remains 
seem to be mostly dwellings of no very remote date, but there was 
not enough to make out anything with certainty.” Upon his second 
journey the ruins appeared to him more extensive. ‘* The remains 
are strewed around in shapeless heaps, but are much more consider- 
able and extensive than my former impressions had led me to sup- 
pose. Indeed, there are here remains enough, not only to warrant, 
but to require the hypothesis of a large ancient place” (ii. 845). 
Thomson (i. 545), on the contrary, speaks of the ruins as ‘‘ not ade- 
quate to answer the demands of history. No one would think of 
them, if he had not a theory to maintain which required them to repre- 
sent Capernaum.” Bonar also affirms, ‘‘ that no large town surely 
stood here, else it would have left some traces of itself.” The later 
explorers speak in the same way. Col. Wilson (Recov. Jer., 273) 
says of the ruins described by Robinson: ‘‘ They form a series of 
mounds covering an extent of ground small in comparison with either 
those of Tell Hum or Korazeh,” nor do they contain the ruins of any 
important building. As no fragments of columns, capitals, or carved 
stones were found, he concludes that the ruins are of modern date. 
And the ruins on the hill above Khan Minyeh where some place Caper- 
naum, he regards as unimportant. 

These differing, and somewhat conflicting, statements show, at 
least, that whatever may have been the cause, whether by the trans- 
portation of the hewn stones to Tiberias or elsewhere, as said by 
Robinson, or as the more direct result of a divine judgment through 
some physical catastrophe, almost all traces of Capernaum, if it stood 
here, have disappeared. 

If, then, neither the Round Fountain, nor Ain et-Tin, answers 
to that described by Josephus, and if they are the only fountains 
lying in the plain, we must seek this fountain without the plain, 
and yet so near it that it might be irrigated by it; and such a 
one may be found at et-Tabigah, some three-quarters of a mile or a 
mile north of Khan Minyeh. Here are several hot springs, issuing 
from a limestone rock some thirty or forty feet above the plain; one 
is much larger than the rest, and is said by Col. Wilson to be by far 
the largest spring in Galilee. It rises in an octagonal reservoir of 
stone, originally some twenty feet high, but now the wall is broken, 
and the water is only about ten feet in depth. For what purpose was 
this reservoir? Not apparently to gain power to turn mills, but to 
supply water to irrigate the plain of Gennesaret; and this could 
be done only through an aqueduct. Are there now any traces of 
one? In going northward along the shore from Khan Minyeh toward 


’ 


“| 
’ 


Part IV.] SITE OF CAPERNAUM. 227 


the bay of et-Tabigah, says Robinson (iii. 345), ‘‘ we struck upon the 
rocky and precipitous point of the hill above the fountain, toward 
the northeast. There is no passage along its base, which is washed 
by waters of the lake. A path has been cut in ancient times along 
the rock some twenty feet above the water, and we found no difficulty 
in passing. One feature of the excavation surprised us, namely, that 
for most the way there is a channel cut in the rock, about three feet 
deep and as many wide, which seemed evidently to have been an 
aqueduct once conveying water for irrigating the northern part of 
the plain El-Ghuweir (Gennesaret). There was no mistaking the na- 
ture and object of this channel; and yet no waters were near which 
could be thus conveyed except from the fountains of et-Tabigah. 
Tha fountains issue from under the hill, just back of the village. 
We went thither, and found built up solidly around the main 
fountain an octagonal Roman reservoir, now in ruins. Like those at 
Ras el-Ain, near Tyre, it was obviously built in order to raise the water 
to a certain height for an aqueduct. The head of water was sufficient 
to carry it to the channel around the point ofthe opposite hill into the 
plain El-Ghuweir; but whether this was done by a canal around the 
sides of the valley, or whether even it was done at all, there are now no 
further traces from which to form a judgment. The water hasa 
saltish taste, but is not unpalatable.” Porter (ii. 429) gives substan- 
tially the same description. 

Almost all later travellers and explorers have spoken in a like 
way. Col. Wilson (Recov. Jer., 272) says: ‘‘ Connected with this 
fountain are the remains of some remarkable works, which at one 
time raised its waters to a higher level, and conveyed them bodily 
into the plain of Gennesaret for the purposes of irrigation. After 
leaving the reservoir, the aqueduct can be traced at intervals, follow- 
ing the contour of the ground, to the point where it crossed the beds 
of two water courses on arches, the piers of which may still be seen; 
it then turns down towards the lake, and runs along the hillside on 
the top of a massive retaining wall, of which fifty or sixty yards re- 
main; and lastly passes round the Khan Minyeh cliff by a remarkable 
excavation in the solid rock, which has been noticed by all travellers. 
The elevation of the aqueduct at this point is sufficient to have en- 
abled the water brought by it to irrigate the whole plain of Gennes- 
aret.” McGregor (Rob Roy, 360) confirms Col. Wilson. ‘‘ We 
easily trace the ancient remains cf the ancient aqueduct all the way 
to the rocky cliff. . . . Then we ride up the cliff and find the 
level waterway has come there too. . . . The channel is cut 
round the rocky slope, and we go inside the old dry aqueduct, long 


228 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


used as a riding path, but now plainly seen to be a way for water by 
its section like an inverted horseshoe; the very least convenient form 
for a road and the very best for a channel.” (Of this rocky cut a 
photograph may be found in Dr. Thomson’s Central Palestine.) ‘ 

To the general assent of travellers that this cut was for a water- 
way, Captain Conder takes exception. He says (Qt. St., 1882, 222): 
‘‘The total length of the rock-cut passage is 150 yards, the width 
from four to six feet, but generally not more than from three to six 
feet on the lower side. Between this spring and the passage there 
are no traces of any aqueduct, nor any indication of any wall on piers. 
The level of the passage appears to be higher than the top of the 
reservoir.” His conclusion is, that ‘‘the spring and rock-cut chan- 
nel have no connection with one another. It seems far more prob- 
able that the passage was intended for a road in order to ayoid the 
necessity of climbing over the promontory.” 

If future examinations shall sustain the positions of Conder, the 
spring at et-Tabigah cannot be that mentioned by Josephus as water- 
ing the plain of Gennesaret. But at present we must accept the gen- 
eral statement of travellers, that the channel in the rock was for an 
aqueduct, and was connected with the spring at et-Tabigah. We 
have then a spring, not itself in the plain, and yet capable of irrigat- 
ing it, and apparently once used for that purpose; and so far answer- 
ing to the description of Josephus. 

But two other questions here arise: First, Has this spring in it 
the coracin or cat-fish of which Josephus speaks? This fish, it is 
admitted, is found in the lake, and may easily ascend to the neigh- 
boring fountains, and, according to McGregor, is found not only in 
the Round Fountain, and at Ain et-Tin, but here also at et-Tabigah. 
Second, If this be the fountain at Capernaum, where was the city? 
Are there any ruins near? It is admitted that in its immediate vicin- 
ity are no ruins of importance; apparently no city stood nearit. The 
nearest places, which, by their ruins, show that they were large vil- 
lages or cities, are Khan Minyeh on the south, a mile distant, and Tell 
Hum on the northwest, two or two and a half miles distant. Between 
these we must choose. The argument in favor of Khan Minyeh is, 
that it is nearer the fountain, and directly connected with the aque- 
duct already mentioned. In favor of Tell Hum are the greater extent 
of the ruins, indicating a larger city, and their greater antiquity. 
These are found on ‘‘a little low promontory running out into the 
lake,” about two and a half miles from where the Jordan enters it. 
Here, says Robinson (ii. 246), are the remains of a place of consider. 
able extent, cuvering a tract of at least half a mile along the shore, 
and about half that breadth inland. They consist chiefly of the 


Part IV.] SITE OF CAPERNAUM. 229 


fallen walls of dwellings and other buildings, all of unhewn stone, 
except two ruins. Thomson speaks of them as ‘“‘much more exten- 
sive and striking than those of any other ancient city on this part of 
the lake.” But the recent explorations of the Palestinian Fund 
Society have given us more definite information. Col. Wilson (Recov. 
Jer., 269) says: ‘‘ The whole area, half a mile in length and a quarter 
in breadth, was thickly covered with the ruined walls of private 
houses.” The foundations of a large building were found, which is 
supposed to have been a Jewish synagogue, and of which he says: 
‘Built entirely of white limestone, it must once have been a conspic- 
uous object standing out from the dark basaltic background.” 
There are also the remains of a later building, probably those of a 
church, perhaps that built about 600 A. D., and enclosing the sup- 
posed house of St. Peter. Two remarkable tombs were also found. 

Between these two claimants to be Capernaum, the position of the 
fountain at et-Tabigah, admitting it to be the fountain of Capernaum, 
does not enable us to decide. If the fountain and the city were near 
each other, Khan Minyeh has the preference. But some affirm that 
the fountain might have been quite remote from the city. It is, 
doubtless, generally true that among the brookless hills the site of a 
fountain determines the site of a village, asat Nazareth; but the same 
necessity would not exist in the case of villages built along the lake, 
and thus amply supplied with water for domestic uses. Here, the 
position of a village would naturally be governed by other consider- 
ations. We are not, then, to think it necessary that acity on the lake 
should be close to a fountain, as said by Dr. Robinson (contra Dr. 
Thomson, Van der Velde). If the latter were in its territory, and 
used by its citizens for irrigation, or for mills, or other purposes, 
both would naturally be called by the same name. The existence of 
Tell Hum itself away from any fountain is its own proof. 

As we have seen, the quantity of water at et-Tabigah is very 
abundant, but it is slightly brackish and is not drunk, so that its dis- 
tance from the city was in this respect of no importance. Its chief 
value was to drive mills, one of which is still in use. Thomson 
thinks et-Tabigah may have been ‘‘the great manufacturing suburb 
of Capernaum,” where were clustered together the mills, potteries, 
and tanneries, and other operations of this sort, the traces of which 
are still to be seen. ‘‘I even derive this name Tabiga from this busi- 
ness of tanning.” If Tabigah were thus a suburb of Capernaum, we 
should naturally expect to find remains of former habitations scattered 
along between them. Thomson states that ‘‘ traces of old buildings 
extend all the way along the shore from Tabiga to Tell Hum,” thus 


230 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


connecting them together as cityand suburb. Robinson, on the other 
hand, speaks of ‘‘ other fountains and a town” as lying between. In 
this we have Thomson’s personal assurance that he is in error. So 
far, then, as regards ‘‘ the fertilizing spring” of Josephus, we must 
place it at et-Tabigah, and the probabilities are that it was in the 
territory of Tell Hum, not in that of Khan Minyeh. 

Let us now examine the second topographical datum given by 
Josephus. He tells us (Life, 72), that being bruised by a fall from 
his horse in a skirmish near the mouth of the Jordan, he was carried 
to a village called Cepharnome. Here he remained during the day, 
but was removed that night by medical direction to Tariches, at the 
south side of the lake. From this it is inferred that Capernaum was 
the first town of any importance along the shore from the mouth of 
the Jordan southward, since the soldiers would not have carried a 
wounded man any further than was necessary. Hence, Tell Hum, as 
several miles nearer the place of the skirmish, is more likely to have 
been Capernaum than Khan Minyeh. (Stanley, 376, note; Wilson, 
B. E., ii. 189.) This is very probable, but as we know not whether 
special reasons may not have led Josephus to prefer Capernaum to 
any other city on that shore, irrespective of distance, the argument is 
not at all decisive. 

We have now to consider the statements of the Gospels, which 
seem to place Capernaum in the plain of Gennesaret, and, if so, would 
exclude Tell Hum (Rob. iii. 349 and 358); and since these demand 
some previous examination as to the site of Bethsaida, we must in- 
quire here as to this place, and our knowledge of it. 

Let us first sum up all that we know from other sources respecting 
Bethsaida. In Josephus’ we find mention made of a village of this 
name. ‘‘Philip the Tetrarch also advanced the village Bethsaida, 
situate at the lake of Gennesaret, unto the dignity of a city, both by 
the number of inhabitants it contained, and its other grandeur, and 
called it by the name of Julias, the same name with Czsar’s daugh- 
ter.” Elsewhere he states that it was ‘‘in the lower Gaulanitis ”? and 
in describing the course of the Jordan, he says * that it ‘‘divided the 
marshes and fens of the lake Semechonitis; when it hath run another 
hundred and twenty furlongs, it first passes by the city Julias, and 
then passes through the middle of the lake Gennesaret.” Thus 
Josephus places Bethsaida at or near the entrance of the Jordan into 
the sea of Galilee. It is placed, also, by Pliny, upon the east side of 
the Jordan, and by St. Jerome upon the shore of Gennesaret. 
There is not in Josephus, nor in any of the early fathers, any men. 
tion of another Bethsaida. 


} Antia., xviii. 2. 1. 2 War, ii. 9.1. 8 War, iii. 10. 7. 


Part IV.] SITE OF BETHSAIDA. 231 


Tf, then, there was in the Lord’s day a well-known Bethsaida on 
the northeast side of the lake, not far from the entrance of the Jor- 
dan, can its site now be found? Robinson places it on a hill —et- 
Tell — two or three miles above the entrance of the Jordan on the east 
side, but some distance from its banks (ii. 413). ‘‘ The ruins cover a 
large portion of it, and are quite extensive, but, so far as we could 
observe, consist entirely of unhewn volcanic stones, without any dis 
tinct trace of ancient architecture.” 

It is said by Wilson: ‘‘ Et-Tell has been identified with Bethsaids 
Julias . . . but there is no trace of that magnificence with 
which, according to Josephus, Julias was built.” Socin (Baedeker) 
says: ‘‘ The ruins consist only of a few ancient fragments.’ Thus it 
appears that, if Bethsaida was at et-Tell, almost all traces of it have 
disappeared. But there are some who do not put it at et-Tell. 
Thomson, with whom Wilson and others agree, objects that the hill 
is too far from the mouth of the Jordan, and that as Bethsaida — 
‘“house of fish’ — derived its name from its fisheries, it must have 
been located on the shore. Thomson is therefore inclined to put it at 
the mouth, and suggests that the town would naturally extend to both 
sides of the river, here some seventy feet wide. As the stream is so 
narrow, it is almost certain that, even if the main part of the city 
was on one bank, the other bank would also be built upon. Philip, 
in enlarging and ornamenting it, doubtless confined himself to the 
eastern side, the part which lay in his own territory; and this would 
then become, if it were not at the first, distinctively the city to which 
the western side would stand asthe suburb. This is the view long 
since defended by Hess (Lehre w. Thaten unsers Herrn, 1806), and upon 
his map Bethsaida is placed on the west side of the Jordan near its 
mouth, and Bethsaida Julias opposite to it on the east. It is said by 
Rohr (Palestine, 154), ‘‘ Bethsaida Julias lay on the northeast shore 
of the lake near the influx of the Jordan, and probably on both sides 
of the river.” (So Calmet and others. Wilson, B. E., iii. 170.) In 
this way the objection is met that Bethsaida is called ‘‘ Bethsaida of 
Galilee ” (John xii. 21), for if the town was built on both banks of 
the river, a part was in Gaulanitis, as said by Josephus, and a part 
in Galilee. 

But are there any ruins on either bank? Thomson finds on the 
west side some remains of ancient buildings, and Col. Wilson speaks 
of a “few small mounds and heaps of stone.” (Recov. Jer., 269.) 
On the eastern side not far from the bank, are traces of an ancient 
village, foundations of old walls, which Dr. Thomson identifies, and 
with great probability, with Bethsaida Julias.” 


232 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


Schumacher, the latest explorer of that region (The Jaulan, Qt. 
St., April, 1888), places Bethsaida Julias at El Mesadiyeh, a little way 
from the Jordan’s mouth, on the east shore, quite near the lake. He 
says that while et-Tell has the more commanding position, no more 
ornaments or inscriptions have been found there than at El Mesadiyeh. 
He suggests that the residence of Philip may have been on the hill et- 
Tell, and the fishing village at El Araj near the mouth of the Jordan, 
where are ruins, and that ‘‘ both were closely united by the beautiful 
road still visible.” 

Was this Bethsaida on the east side of the Jordan, of which we 
have been speaking, the Bethsaida of the Evangelists, in which the 
Lord wrought His miracles, and on which He pronounced judgment? 
Let us examine the several places where it is mentioned. John (i. 
44) speaks of a ‘‘city ’— és — of thisname: ‘‘ Philip was of Beth- 
saida, the city of Andrew and Peter.” And again (xii. 21): ‘‘ Philip 
was of Bethsaida of Galilee.” In Matthew (xi. 21) it is classed with 
Capernaum and Chorazin as a city that had seen the great works of 
the Lord, and yet had not repented. (See also Luke x. 13.) In its 
vicinity was the healing of the blind man (Mark viii. 22): ‘* He com- 
eth to Bethsaida, and they bring a blind man unto Him : 
and He took him by the hand and led him out of the town and 
healed him.” And not far from it was the feeding of the five thou- 
sand (Luke ix. 10): ‘‘ He took the disciples, and went aside privately 
into a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida.” (Accord- 
ing to the R. V.: ‘‘ He took them and withdrew apart to a city called 
Bethsaida.” But that Luke puts this miracle at some distance from 
the city itself, appears from verse 12: ‘‘for we are here in a desert 
place.”) Of this ‘‘desert place” apart, both Matthew and Mark 
speak, but do not mention it as at or near Bethsaida. (The place 
where the 5,000 were fed will be more fully examined in its order.) 

That this desert place was on the east side of the lake, appears 
from the statements of all the Evangelists. The Lord and His disci- 
ples went to it by a ship or boat, and after the feeding of the multi- 
tude, they returned in the same way. But being on the east side, 
how could the Lord (Mark vi. 45) ‘‘ constrain the disciples to get into 
the ship, and to go to the other side before unto Bethsaida” (in R. V. 
‘“to go before Him unto the other side to Bethsaida”’)? Does not this 
imply that there was, also, a Bethsaida on the west side? This seems 
to be confirmed by John’s statement, vi. 17, that ‘‘the disciples went 
over the sea toward Capernaum.” Matthew and Mark say only that 
when they were gone over they came to Gennesaret. From all this 
the inference is drawn that there was a Bethsaida on the west side of 


‘7° 


Part IV.] SITE OF BETHSAIDA, 235 


the lake, and near or in the plain of Gennesaret. After the feeding 
of the multitude near the eastern Bethsaida, the disciples returned 
across the sea to the western Bethsaida. Thus there were two 
Bethsaidas, the eastern in Gaulanitis, in Philip’s territory; the west- 
ern in Galilee, and under Herod. It is also said that John speaks 
of ‘‘ Bethsaida of Galilee,” as if to distinguish it from another of the 
same name, not of Galilee. 

But apparently to the time of Reland (1714 A. D.) only one Beth- 
saida had been thought of, although the difficulties of the matter as 
just stated had been felt and various solutions proposed. (Raumer, 
109, note; Rob., ii. 418, note 6.) 

Reland (653) conjectured that there were two Bethsaidas, one on 
the east of Jordan in Gaulanitis, and one on the west side of the 
lake in Galilee, and this conjecture has been almost universally 
received as the true solution. But he himself was aware of the 
improbability that two towns of the same name should lie upon 
the same lake only a few miles apart, and adopted this solution 
only because he had no other to give. Atgue ita, quamvis non sim 
proclivis ad statuendas duas pluresve urbes ejusdem nominis (quod ple- 
rumque ad soluendam aliquam difficultatem ultimum est refugium), hic 
tamen puto id necessario jieri oportere. He does not, however, allow 
that there is any mention by the Lord of the Bethsaida east of Jor- 
dan. Christus de Bethsaida loquens non potuit nisi de sola Galilaica 
intelligi. 

But do the accounts of the feeding of the five thousand, and the 
subsequent crossing of the lake, make imperative the theory of two 
Bethsaidas? Most agree that somewhere in the territory of the Beth- 
saida east of the lake, the multitude was fed. But the exact site of 
the city we do not know, nor where was ‘‘the desert place” of the feed- 
ing. Thomson thinks that he finds this place at ‘‘ the point where 
the hills on the east side of the plain Butaiha come to the edge of 
the lake.” This plain is said by Col. Wilson to be two and a half 
miles long, and one and a half wide, but some make it much larger. 
The place of feeding must have been some two or three miles south- 
easterly of the Jordan, Tell Hum lying a little northwest across the 
end of the lake, and the land of Gennesaret lying to the south of 
Tell Hum. ‘‘ At the southeastern end of this plain, Butaiha, the 
hills which bound it approach within a half mile of the lake shore, 
where they form an angle with those which extend due south along 
the eastern side of the lake.” At the foot of the high hill at this 
angle is located the feeding of the five thousand. McGarvey (328) 
says: ‘‘ Here is a smooth grassy plain, the lake near at hand, and not 


oe 


234 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD, [Part IV, 


far away the mountain where the Lord went up to pray when He 
had sent away the multitude.” 

Accepting this as the ‘‘ desert place,” a place uninhabited, be- 
longing to Bethsaida, and the city Bethsaida as near the Jordan, let 
us put in order the events of the afternoon and night. Jesus leay- 
ing the west side, probably at Capernaum, with His disciples seeks 
some place on the eastern shore where He may be alone with them. 
There is no reason to think that He would go further than to attain 
this end, and such a retreat He would find at the place we have 
mentioned. The people at Capernaum see Him go, and they and the 
people of the adjacent villages follow Him by land. After the feeding 
of the multitude, He constrains His disciples to depart in the boat 
while He remains to dismiss the people. He directs them to go be- 
fore Him to Bethsaida, for this was not far distant, and there He 
will rejoin them and go with them to Capernaum. But the wind 
arising, they are driven down to the middle of the lake where it is 
some six miles broad, and opposite to Gennesaret. Here, early in 
the morning, the Lord meets them, walking upon the sea, and the 
wind ceasing, ‘‘immediately the ship was at the land,” and they 
go thence to Capernaum. 

That the disciples expected Jesus to rejoin them and go with 
them to Capernaum appears from John (vi. 17): ‘* They were going 
over the sea to Capernaum, and it was now dark, and Jesus had not 
yet come to them.” Godet remarks: ‘‘It is more simple to suppose 
that, inasmuch as the direction from Bethsaida Julias is nearly par- 
allel with the northern shore, Jesus had appointed for them a meet- 
ing place at some point on that side, at the mouth of the Jordan, for 
example, where He counted upon joining them again.” ‘‘ Probably 
they were intending to coast along the shore between Bethsaida Ju- 
lias and Capernaum; in this they were, no doubt, following their 
Master’s directions. The words that follow show clearly that they 
expected Him to rejoin them at some point on the coast.” (M. and M. 
in loco. Rob. iii. 878. See Gardiner, Har. 101, note.) 

Let us examine the reasoning of those who affirm a western Beth- 
saida near Capernaum. When Jesus directed His disciples to enter 
the ship, and go before Him to the western side of the lake (R. 
Vv. ‘‘to go before Him unto the other side to Bethsaida”), He 
mentions, according to Mark (vi. 45), Bethsaida as their point of 
destination; according to John (vi. 17), Capernaum (R. V., “they 
were going over the sea unto Capernaum”). The inference, there- 
fore, is that the two cities were situated near each other on the shore 
of the lake. That they were in the land of Gennesaret, or near it, it 


Part IV.] SITE OF BETHSAIDA. 235 


is said, appears from the statement cf John (vi. 21), that after Jesus 
joined them in the ship, ‘‘it was immediately at the land whither they 
went,” z.¢., at Capernaum. But Matthew says: ‘‘ When they were 
gone over, they came into the land of Gennesaret.” R. V., ‘‘ They 
came to the land, unto Gennesaret.” (So Mark vi. 53.) The infer- 
ence, therefore, is that Capernaum was in or near Gennesaret, and 
Bethsaida adjacent to it. This conclusion, Robinson, who puts Ca- 
pernaum at Khan Minyeh and Bethsaida at et-Tabigah, holds ‘to be 
incontrovertible.” 

But let us briefly consider it. The first proposition is, that as 
both Capernaum and Bethsaida are mentioned as the point to which 
the disciples should sail, they must have been near each other. 
According to Mark, the Lord directed them to go to Bethsaida; what 
is said in John is simply narrative: “They were going over the sea 
to Capernaum.” This is rendered by Alford: ‘‘ They were making 
for the other side of the sea, in the direction of Capernaum” ; 
this city being, as the Lord’s residence, the point of ultimate 
destination. 

But, if we put Bethsaida at the mouth of the Jordan, and Caper- 
naum at Tell Hum, the two cities were, in point of fact, near to each 
other, the distance between them being only about two or two and 
a half miles. The relative positions of the two places, according 
to Col. Wilson, are such, that to reach Tell Hum from the point on 
the eastern shore where the Lord then was, a boat would naturally 
go in a northwesterly direction, and so pass near Bethsaida at the 
mouth of the Jordan; and here the disciples expected Him to rejoin 
them. McGregor (Rob Roy, 364 ff.) argues from the usual force and 
slirection of the winds, that to put Bethsaida at Ain Tabigah best 
meets the natural conditions. But his experience was too brief for 
a conclusive judgment. 

The second proposition is, that as the disciples were going to 
Capernaum, and landed at some point in Gennesaret, Capernaum 
must have been at or near that point. But it is clear from Mark vi. 
53) that He did not land at Capernaum, and was at some distance from 
it; and went thither slowly, healing the sick by the way. Itis said 
by Robinson (iii. 350, note): ‘‘ During the early part of the day Jesus 
healed many, apparently before reaching Capernaum.” 

We do not, then, feel compelled to put another Bethsaida on the 
west side of the lake, in or near Gennesaret. Ifat the mouthof the Jor 
dan, it would answer to the statements of the Evangelists, and would 
be, in fact, a little distance from Tell Hum. 

The various opinions respecting Bethsaida may be thus summed 


up: 


236 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


I. 1. That there was but one Bethsaida, and this on the west side 
of the lake. This was the early and general belief. Butas to the exact 
site there wasno agreement. (a.) Some said that it was near Tiberias, 
and here was put the feeding of the'five thousand in the ‘‘ desert place.” 
To reach it, the Lord crossed from one side of a bay to the other side in 
a ship, but did not cross the lake. (b.) That its territory extended 
along the northern shore of the lake to the east side where was the 
desert place. (c.) That it was a suburb of Capernaum. 

2. Thatit was on the southeast side of the lake, and nearer the exit 
than the entrance of the Jordan. 

Il. That there was one Bethsaida, at the entrance of the Jordan, 
and lying on both sides of the river. 

Thomson, DeSaulcy, Col. Wilson, Conder, Riddle, and Gardiner 
doubtful. : 

Ill. That there were two Bethsaidas, one on the east, and one on 
the west side. 

The advocates of the last view are the most numerous. 

For two Bethsaidas, one at B. Julias on east side, and one some- 
where on the western shore: Ritter, Robinson, Caspari, Godet, Ellicott, 
Wieseler, Edersheim, Geikie, Socin, Farrar, Weiss, Tristram, Hender- 
son, Van der Velde. But these are not agreed where the western 
Bethsaida is to be placed. 

For Khan Minyeh: Ritter, Van der Velde, Caspari, Weiss. 

Ain Tabigah: Robinson, Tristram, McGregor. 

A suburb of Capernaum: Caspari, Edersheim. 

On southeast side of the lake: Lightfoot. 


Returning now to the site of Capernaum; in favor of Tell Hum is _ 


itsname. Caphernaum is generally derived from Kefr Nahum — ‘*‘ the 
village of Nahum,” or as others, ‘‘ the village of consolation.” (See 
T. G. Lex.) Of this name the Talmudists give several variations, 
but all agree in retaining the syllable howm, which favors its identi- 
fication with Tell Hum. (Neubauer, 221; Hamburger, ii. 636.) 
Thomson explains the substitution of Tell-(hill) for Kefr-(village,) by 
the fact that the Arabs apply to a heap of ruins the term Tell. Thus 
Kefr Nahum becoming ruinous was changed into Tell Nahum, and 
then abbreviated into Tell Hum. 

The extent and antiquity of its ruins are also in its favor; and 
its position, as near the border line of the territories of Herod 
and Philip, thus making it a fit place for the receipt of customs 
(Matt. ix. 9). Had Capernaum been at Khan Minyeh, it would have 
been too far from the border, the tolls being paid to Herod not te 
the Romans (see Schiirer, in Riehm, Art. Zoll). These remarks will 
also apply to it as a garrison town. _ 


a 


Part, IV.] SITE OF CHORAZIN. 237 


There is, however, one objection to be noticed — the absence of any 
harbor at Tell Hum, natural or artificial. Fishing boats could not lie 
there safely, but would go south toward Tabigah, where there is a 
little bay of which Tristram says: ‘‘ The white beach gently shelves, 
and is admirably adapted for fishing boats. . . . The sand has just 
the gentle slope fitted for the fishermen running up their boats and 
beaching them.” (See McGregor, Rob Roy, 342.) But in this 
respect Tell Hum and Khan Minyeh seem to have been in the same 
position, the latter having to find its harborage south of it on the 
shore of Gennesaret. 

In fayor of Tell Hum, Thomson appeals to tradition: ‘‘So far as 
I can discover, after spending many weeks in this neighborhood off 
and on for a quarter of acentury, the invariable tradition of the Arabs 
and Jews fixes Capernaum at Tell Hum, and I believe correctly.” 
(See also Col. Wilson, Recov. Jer., 298.) 

Some notice must be taken here of the argument in favor of 
Khan Minyeh derived from its name. It is said that Minyeh in its 
original form Mini, meant, according to the Rabbis, heretics, or Jews 
who had become Christians. Kefr Minyeh was ‘‘the village of the 
heretics.” It was in this opprobious way that they named Caper- 
naum, it having been the place where Jesus lived. We are therefore 
to regard Khan Minyeh as Capernaum. (So Conder, H. B. 326, Sepp. 
ii. 2 Theil, 248. See Art. Capernaum in Riehm.) 

But on the other side, it is said by Edersheim, i. 365, that ‘‘cer- 
tain vile insinuations of the Rabbis connecting it with heresy, point 
to Kepher Nachum — Capernaum — as the home of Jesus.” It is evi- 
dent that little reliance can be placed upon Jewish tradition in the 
matter. 

We have still to inquire respecting the site of Chorazin. Two or 
three miles northwest from Tell Hum are some ruins called Khirbet 
Kerazeh. They were visited by Robinson, who describes them as 
““a few foundations of black stones, the remains evidently of a poor 
and inconsiderable village,” and regards them as ‘‘ too trivial ever to 
have belonged to a place of any importance. Chorazin too, accord- 
ing to Jerome, lay upon the shore of the lake, but the site is an hour 
distant, shut in among the hills, without any view of the lake, and 
remote from any public road, ancient or modern.” While Robinson 
thus rejects Kerazeh as the site of Chorazin, Thomson is equally 
decided in its favor. ‘‘Ihave scarcely a doubt about the correctness 
of the identification, though Dr. Robinson rejects it almost with con- 
tempt. But the name Korazy is nearly the Arabic for Chorazin; the 
situation, two miles north of Tell Hum, is just where we might ex- 
pect to find it; the ruins are quite adequate to answer the demands 


238 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


of history, and there is no rival site.” With Thomson Keith agrees:' 
‘‘There seems no reason for questioning that Korazy is the Chorazin 
of Scripture, in which it is not said to stand on the shore of the lake 
of Tiberias, as Capernaum and Bethsaida are. We reached it in 
fifty-five minutes from the chief ruin of Tell Hum, from three to four 
miles distant. It lies almost directly to the west of the point where 
the Jordan flows into the lake. It retains the name and is known by 
it still among the inhabitants of the country round, and, as we 
repeatedly inquired, especially at Safet, by no other. Of these ruins 
Col. Wilson (Recov. Jer., 270) says: ‘‘They cover an area as large, 
if not larger, than the ruins of Capernaum.” He finds the distance 
from Tell Hum north to be two and one-half miles. The identifica- 
tion of these ruins with Chorazin is now generally accepted. 

This topographical discussion, extended as it is, by no means ex- 
hausts the subject. Certainty as regards these sites is at present 
unattainable; but as the question now stands, it is most probable that 
Capernaum was at Tell Hum, that Chorazin was a little to the north 
of it; and that there was but one Bethsaida, and this near the 
entrance of the Jordan into the lake, and lying on both banks. All 
these places seem to have been of considerable size and importance, 
and nea to one another. It is a strong objection to a western 
Bethsaida that the only ‘‘mighty works” that are recorded as done 
by the Lord in any Bethsaida, are the feeding of the five thousand 
(Luke ix. 10), and the healing of a blind man (Mark viii. 22). That 
these were both at Bethsaida Julias is generally admitted. It would 
be strange, therefore, if the woes pronounced by Him (Matt. xi. 21) 
were not on the city where these miracles were done, but on another, 
in which, as far as recorded, He wrought none. 

We have therefore left unnoticed the position taken by some that 
“the land of Gennesaret” is to be identified with the plain El Ba- 
tihah at the mouth of the Jordan.?, The arguments by which it is 
supported are briefly these, that the political divisions, which assigned 
the Jordan as the eastern limit of Galilee, had no existence prior to 
the will of Herod partitioning his dominions among his sons; that 
there was but one Bethsaida, and that Bethsaida Julias at the mouth 
of the Jordan; that the Scriptures show that Capernaum and Beth- 
saida were but a step apart, and therefore Capernaum was in the 
plain El Batihah; and that this site best corresponds to the language 
of Josephus. Admitting that there is some force in these considera- 


1So Norton, Notes, 115; Winer, i. 238; Van der Velde, Memoir, 304. 

2See article by Tregelles, in Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, vol. iii. p. 
145. . See also article, vol. ii. p. 220, by Thrupp, who regards Gennesaret as El Batihah, 
but identifies Capernaum with Tell Hum, and finds no trace or tradition of a Bethsaida 
on the western side of the lake. 


Part IV.] CIRCUITS IN GALILEE. 239 


tions, still they are by no means so weighty as to lead us to change 
the position of the land of Gennesaret from the west to the north of 
the lake.’ 


We know not whether private and personal reasons had any 
influence in the selection of this city as the central point of His 
labors in Galilee. Some, as Lightfoot and Ewald, have sup- 
posed that Joseph had possessions there, and that the family, the 
Lord’s mother and brethren, were now residing there (John ii. 
12). More probably, in the selection of Capernaum He was 
determined chiefly by local position and relations. Lying upon 
the sea of Galilee, and the great roads from Egypt to Syria run- 
ning through it, and in the direct line from Jerusalem to Damas- 
cus,” it gave Him such facilities of intercourse with men as He 
could not have had in more secluded Nazareth. Not only could 
He readily visit all parts of Galilee, but by means of the lake 
He had ready access also to the region upon the other side, and to 
the towns both north and south in the valley of the Jordan. From 
it he could easily make circuits into Galilee on the west, into 
Trachonitis on the north, and into Decapolis and Perea on the 
east and south. Besides this local fitness for His work, it was 
also the residence of Simon and Andrew, and but a little way 
from Bethsaida, the city of Philip. 

It does not appear from the Gospels whether the Lord had a 
house of His own at Capernaum, or dwelt with some relative or 
disciple. His own words (Matt. viii. 20), ‘the Son of Man hath 
not where to lay His head,” seem decisive that He did not own 
any dwelling, but was dependent upon others even for a place 
where to sleep. He is spoken of as entering the house of Peter 
(Matt. viii. 14), and the form of expression (Mark ii. 1), “it was 
noised abroad that He was at home,” (R. V. margin, compare 
iii 19) implies that He had a fixed place of abode. Norton, in 
common with many, supposes that He resided in the house of 
Peter; Alexander (on Mark i. 29) suggests that Peter may “have 
opened a house for the convenience of his Lord and master in 
the intervals of His itinerant labors.” If, however, His mother 
was now living at Capernaum, which is by no means certain, 


1See Ewald, Jahrbuch, 1856, p. 144, who also places Gennesaret on the north of 
the sea. 


*Robinson, ii. 405; Ritter, Theil, xv. 271. 


240 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


He would natnrally take wp His abode with her. “The change 
of abode,” says Alford, seems to have included the whole 
family, except the sisters, who may have been married at 
Nazareth.” Greswell asserts that the incident respecting the 
tribute money (Matt. xvii. 24) proves ‘ndisputably that He was 
a legal inhabitant of Capernaum. 





SEA OF GALILEE, AND THE PART OF EASTERN GALILEE ADJACENT. 


The arrival of the Lord at Capernaum, there to take up His 
abode, offers us a fitting place in which to speak of His Galilean 
work in its general practical features, and to give a brief out 
line of it. 

In many points it was very unlike His earlier work in 
Judza. So far as we can learn, He did not then go from place 
to place baptizing, nor does He seem to have made any use of 
the synagogues for the purpose of teaching. Like the Baptist, 
He did not seek the people in their cities and villages, but made 
the people seek Him (Matt. iii. 5; xi. 7). In Galilee the Lord 
began immediately to visit the people in all their cities and 


: 


Part IV.] CIRCUITS IN GALILEE. 241 


villages, making Capernaum the central point of His labors, and 
this He did in a systematic manner; “ He went round about the 
villages teaching” (Mark vi. 6). “Ina circle,” says Alexander, 
“or circuit, that is, not merely round about, but on a regular 
concerted plan of periodical visitation.” We have not sufficient 
data to determine the local order of these visitations ; but it is 
natural to suppose that He would first visit the places near 
Capernaum, and then those more remote (Mark i. 38). From 
this city as a centre He would go forth to preach in the adjoin- 
ing towns, and by degrees extend His labors to those more dis- 
tant. And His course would be directed rather to the west 
than to the east, both because Galilee lay to the westward, and 
because of the semi-heathenish character of the people who lived 
beyond the lake. It was, in fact, a considerable time, as we 
we shall see, ere He visited the regions of Cesarea Philippi and 
of Decapolis. 

During these circuits we find the Lord journeying from 
place to place, remaining for the most part only a little while ina 
villaze. In these journeys He was attended by His disciples; at 
first by those who had before been with Him in Judea, and 
whom He recalled ; and then by others; and afterward by the 
body of the Apostles, who became His constant attendants. At 
a later period of His ministry, His mother and other women 
accompanied Him in some of His circuits (Luke viii. 2); and He 
was followed by crowds who were drawn to Him by various 
motives. His common mode of procedure was apparently this: 
on entering a city where was a synagogue, He availed Himself 
of the privilege which His reputation as a rabbi and prophet 
gave Him, to teach the people from the Scriptures. This He did 
upon the Sabbaths and synagogue days. These synagogue days 
were Mondays and Thursdays, being the ordinary market days 
when the country people came into the town, and for this reason 
the services on these days were of a more elaborate character 
(Hders., i. 432). At other times He preached in the streets or 
fields, or sitting in a boat upon the sea; in every convenient 
place where the people were willing to hear Him. His fame as 
a healer of the sick caused many to be brought to Him, and He 
appears in general to have healed all (Mark vi, 56; Matt. ix. 35). 

11 


242 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


His sojourn in any single village was necessarily brief, and 
therefore those who had been really impressed by His works or 
words, and desired to see or hear Him more, followed Him to 
the adjoining towns, or sought Him at Capernaum. The 
disciples do not appear to have taken any public part as teachers, 
but may privately have aided Him in various ways to dissemi. 
nate truth among the people. The expenses of these journeys 
were probably borne by the contributions of the disciples, and 
by the voluntary offerings of the grateful who had been healed, 
and of their friends. After the Twelve had been chosen, one 
of their number seem to have acted as treasurer, taking charge 
of the moneys designed for the common use (see John xii. 6). 

A specimen of the daily activity of the Lord may be found 
in the narrative of His early work in Capernaum. He enters 
upon the Sabbath into the synagogue and teaches, filling all 
His hearers with astonishment at His words. He there heals a 
demoniac, probably immediately after the discourse. Leaving 
the synagogue, He enters Peter’s house and heals a sick woman, 
and crowds coming to Him at evening, He heals many others. 
The next morning, after a time of meditation and prayer, He 
departs to another city. Similar, doubtless, in their main 
features to this, were His labors upon subsequent Sabbaths. 
In mentioning these circuits, none of the Evangelists gives them 
in regular order, or relates the events in chronological succession. 
Each has his own principle of selection and of arrangement, with 
which we are not now concerned; but it is obvious when we 
remember how great was the Lord’s activity, how many His 
works and words, that within the limits of their narratives only 
very brief outlines can be given. 

The stages of progress in the Lord’s labors in Galilee will be 
noticed as we meet them. Yet it should be noted as charac- 
teristic of the beginning of His ministry, that we do not find 
any open avowal of His Messianic claims. He wished the peo- 
ple to infer who He was from His words and works rather than to 
learn it from any express declarations of Hisown. He preached 
the kingdom of heaven as at hand, and illustrated it by His 
miracles. (Of the nature and number of these we shall speak 
later.) If the people had sufficient spiritual discernment to see 





Part EVE] CIRCUITS IN GALILEE. 243 


the true import of what He said and did, this was all the proot 
that was needed that He was the Messiah. 

_ We give at this point, for the sake of convenient reference, 
an outline of the Lord’s Galilean work to the death of the Bap- 
tist, divided into periods of sojourn in Capernaum, and of cir- 
cuits in the adjacent territories. The grounds for the order will 
be stated as the particular periods come under consideration. 


First Sojourn in Capernaum. 

Rejected at Nazareth, He comes to Capernaum. In its 
neighborhood He calls the four disciples while fishing upon the 
lake, and works the miracle of the draught of fishes. On the 
following Sabbath He preaches in the synagogue, and heals the 
demoniac, and afterward heals the mother of Peter’s wife. In 
the afternoon, after the sun had set, He heals many others. 
Early the next morning He rises to pray, and then departs to 
preach and heal in the adjacent cities and villages. 


FIRST CIRCUIT. 

He visits the “next towns,” probably those lying nearest 
Capernaum, as Chorazin and Bethsaida. No particulars of this 
circuit are given, except that He heals a leper ‘in one of the 
cities.” This being noised abroad, He is for a time unable to 
enter any city, and retires to secluded places where the people 
gather to Him. After an absence, it may be of some weeks, 
He returns to Capernaum. 


Second Sojourn in Capernaum. 

Crowds begin to gather to Him so soon as it is known that 
He is at home. A paralytic is brought to Him, whom He heals, 
forgiving his sins. This awakens the anger of the Scribes, who 
regard it as an assumption of the Divine prerogative. He 
goes forth again by the seaside. and teaches. Walking along 
the shore, He calls Levi. He goes upon a Sabbath through a 
field in the neighborhood of Capernaum with His disciples, and 
on the way plucks and eats the ears of corn. This is noted by 
the Pharisees of the city who are watching Him. He enters 
the second time into the synagogue, and heals the man with a 
withered hand. The Pharisees and the Herodians now conspire 
against Him, He departs to the seaside, and is followed by 
crowds, 


244 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


Leaving Capernaum, the Lord goes to a mountain in the 
neighborhood, and after a night spent in prayer, calls His dis- 
ciples, and from them chooses the twelve apostles. Great mul- 
titudes now gathering to Him. He delivers the Sermon on the 
Mount, and returns, apparently the same day, to Capernaum, 
still followed by the multitudes. He heals, immediately upon 
His return, the Centurion’s servant. The people so throng Him, 
and His labors are so incessant, that He has not time even to 
eat, and His friends fear for His sanity. 


SECOND CIRCUIT. 


Soon after, He goes to Nain, and raises from ceath the 
widow’s son. He continues His ministry in the adjacent region. 
John Baptist sends a message to Him from his prison ; to which 
He replies, and addresses the people respecting John. He dines 
with Simon, a Pharisee, and is anointed by a woman who is a 
sinner. He returns again to Capernaum. 


Third Sojourn in Capernaum. 


He heals a blind and dumb possessed man, whereupon the 
Pharisees blaspheme, saying that He is aided by Beelzebub. 
His mother and brethren come to Him, but He rejects their 
claims. He goes to the sea-shore and teaches in parables. 


THIRD CIRCUIT. 


The same day at even He crosses the sea with His disciples, 
and stills the tempest. He heals the Gergesene demoniacs; and 
the devils, entering into a herd of swine, destroy them. The 
people of the country entreat Him to depart, and He returns 
to Capernaum. 

Fourth Sojourn in Capernaum. 


Here Levi makes Him a feast. He raises from death the 
the daughter of Jairus, and heals the woman with an issue of 
blood, the two blind men, and a dumb possessed man. 


FOURTH CIRCUIT. 


He goes to Nazareth. and isa second time rejected. He 
teaches in the villages of that part of Galilee, and sends out the 
twelve apostles on their mission. About this time Herod puts 
the Baptist to death, and now hearing of Jesus and His miracles 


Part 1V.] JESUS BEGINS HIS LABORS AT CAPERNAUM. 245 


wishes to see Him. Jesus returns to Capernaum, and the apos- 
tles gather to Him there. 


Aprit—May, 781. A.D. 28. 


Arriving at Capernaum, the Lord begins to gather about MArrT. iv. 18-22. 
Him His former disciples, that they may accompany and Marx i. 16-34. 
assist Himin His work. The miracle of the draught of fishes. Luke y. 1-11. 
He enters the synagogue on the Sabbath, and there heals a LUKE iy. 31-41. 
demoniac. Thence He goes the same day to the house of 
Peter, and heals his wife’s mother of a fever, and in the Marv. viii. 14-17. 
evening He heals many sick persons who are brought to Him. 

The first notice we have of the Lord after leaving Nazareth 
(Matt. iv. 18; Mark i. 16; Luke v. 1), brings Him before us 
standing on the shore of the lake, and surrounded by people that 
pressed upon Him to hear the word of God. How long an in- 
terval had elapsed since He left Nazareth we have no data to 
decide, but this gathering of the people to Him presupposes a 
period, longer or shorter, during which He had been teaching. 
Not improbably He may have been several days upon the jour- 
ney, and His growing reputation as a prophet, joined to rumors 
of what had taken place at Nazareth, would procure Him audi- 
ence in whatever village He entered. Especially as He came 
near the lake, the numerous cities and villages would furnish 
crowds of listeners to hear one who spake as never man spake. 

It was as He thus approached Capernaum that He met upon 
the lake His former disciples, Simon, Andrew, James (this is the 
first time James is mentioned, but it is generally accepted that 
he was with his brother John at Bethabara), and John, and 
called them again into His service. We have already seen that 
on leaving Judza, His baptismal work ceasing, His disciples left 
Him and returned to their homes and usual pursuits. To the 
feast (John v. 1) He seems to have gone unattended, nor appar- 
ently were any disciples with Him at Nazareth. But now that 
John’s imprisonment had determined the character of His future 
ministry, He proceeds to gather around Him those who had 
already been workers with Him, that they might enter upon 
this new sphere of labor. Heretofore their relations to Him had 
been similar to their previous relations to John the Baptist, 
involving only a temporary absence from their families and busi 


246 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


ness. ‘These disciples, hitherto,” says Lightfoot, “were only 
as private men following Christ.” It is well said by Bruce 
(“The Training of the Twelve,” Edin. 1887) that there were three 
stages in the fellowship of the Apostles with Christ: Ist, as 
simple believers in Him as the Christ, and His occasional com- 
panions; 2d, the abandonment of secular occupations, and a 
constant attendance on His person; 3d, when called especially 
to be Apostles. Now the Lord sought to engage them in a 
work which should be life-long, and which was incompatible 
with other pursuits. They should now be His constant attend- 
ants, going with Him wherever He went, and thus be necessarily 
separated from their families and friends. This call at the sea 
of Galilee to follow Him was not, indeed, as Alford, Caspari, 
and others suppose, a call to the apostleship, but to a preliminary 
service; and those thus called had as yet little understanding 
what labors, dangers, or dignities it involved. 

To one who considers the essentially different character of 
Christ’s work in Judea and in Galilee, it will not appear sur- 
prising that, when beginning the latter, He should give to these 
disciples a new and distinct call. Only neglect to note this differ- 
ence permits anyone to speak of a want of harmony between 
John and the Synoptists upon this ground. 

From the narrative of Mark (i. 16-21; see also Matt. iv. 18- 
23), we should infer that the call of Peter and Andrew, James 
and John, was the Lord’s first act after He came to the sea, and 
perhaps before He went to Capernaum. Luke, however (iv. 31 
—42), places the preaching in the synagogue, the healing of the 
demoniac and of Peter’s wife’s mother and others, and His first 
circuit, before this call (v. 1-11), and connects it with the 
wonderful draught of fishes. But we shall find abundant proof 
that Luke does not follow the chronological order, and that 
nothing decisive can be inferred from the fact that he places 
the call after the miracles and teaching. Still, as his accounts 
of this call differ somewhat from those of Mark and Matthew, many 
have been led to regard them as distinct, and as happening at 
different times.’ The peculiarity of the call in Luke, according 


1 So early, Augustine, and recently, Krafft, Stier, Greswell, Alford, Rig., Lex, 
Keil. See Trench, 106, Ellicott, 164, note. 


Part IV.] CALL OF THE DISCIPLES AT SEA OF GALILEE. 247 


to this view, is that it was later than that in Matthew and 
Mark, and that now “the disciples forsook all, and followed 
Him.” Now they became fishers of men (Luke v. 10), in fulfill- 
ment of His previous promise (Matt. iv. 19). This involved the 
entire relinquishment of their secular callings, and to convince 
them of His ability to take care of them and supply every tem- 
poral need, not excluding other and higher symbolical meanings, 
the Lord worked the miracle of the draught of fishes. But the 
words of both Matthew (iv. 20) and Mark (i. 18) are express 
that “they straightway forsook their nets and followed Him.” 
How, then, should they be found several days after engaged in 
their usual occupations? That, whenever the Lord was at 
Capernaum, these disciples were wont to follow their calling as 
fishermen, as said by Alford, is plainly inconsistent with their 
relations to Him, and with the service He sought from them. 
Certainly they could have had little time for such labors amidst 
the pressure of the crowds which seem to have ever gathered 
around Him when He came to Capernaum.’ 

The circumstances attending the call of the disciples, as 
related by the several Evangelists, may be thus arranged: As 
Jesus approaches the plain of Gennesaret from Nazareth. teach- 
ing by the way, many flock round Him to hear His wonderful 
words. Passing along the level and sandy shore, where the 
fishermen’s boats were drawn up, (which Tristram thinks to have 
been the beach at et-Tabigah) He sees among them the boats of 
Simon and Andrew, and of James and John, who, having been 
fishing, are now washing their nets. As the people press 
upon Him, He requests Simon to push off his boat from the 
shore a little way, that from it He may teach the multitude as 
they stand before Him. After His discourse is ended, He 
directs Simon and Andrew, and perhaps also others with them, 
to push out into the deep waters and let down the net. This, 
after a little hesitation arising from the ill-success of their labors 
the previous night. Simon does, and they take so great a num- 
ber of fish that the net begins to break. He now beckons to 
those in the other boat, James and John and their companions, 
who had doubtless been watching the whole proceeding, and 


1 See Ebrard, 307. 


248 THE LIFE OF CUR LORD. [Part LV. 


who now come to their help, and both boats are so filled as to 
be in danger of sinking. This unexpected success, and all the 
attendant circumstances, make such a powerful impression upon 
Simon’s mind, that, acting with his usual impetuosity, he casts 
himself at the Lord’s feet, saying, “Depart from me for I am 
a sinful man, O Lord.” All are astonished, and see a Divine 
hand in what had happened. Soon after this, probably so soon 
as they reach the shore, He calls Simon and Andrew, in whose 
ship He still is, to follow Him, for He will make them fishers 
of men. During this time James and John have gone a little 
distance from them, and are engaged in repairing the net that 
had been broken. Walking upon the shore, He goes to them 
and calls them also to follow Him, and they, leaving their father 
and servants, follow Him. 

In this way may we find a natural and easy solution of the 
apparent discrepancies between Matthew and Mark, on the one 
hand, and Luke, on the other Luke alone relates that Jesus 
spake to the people from Simon’s boat, and afterward directed 
him to fish, and shows in what relation this fishing stood to the 
subsequent call of the fishermen. Matthew and Mark omit all 
but the fact that they were engaged in their usual work of 
fishing when thus called. There is then no such opposition in 
she accounts as to make it necessary to refer them to different 
events." 

On the first Sabbath following the call of the four disciples, 
he entered the synagogue and taught. His teaching excited 
general astonishment, but not the envy that manifested itself at 
Nazareth. Present in the synagogue was a man possessed with 
a devil, whom He healed, and through this miracle thus publicly 
performed, His fame spread rapidly through all Galilee (Mark 
i. 28). It is to be noted that He did not here, or subsequently, 
permit evil spirits to bear witness to His Divine character or 
Messianic claims (Mark i. 34; Luke iv. 41). The ground of 
this imposition of silence may have been, that the intent with 
which such witness was offered was evil; and that it would also 
have tended to evil by awaking premature and unfounded expec- 


1 Tn this general result agree Lightfoot, Newcome, Townsend, Robinson, Wieseler, 
Tischendorf, Lichtenstein, Ebrard, Edersheim, Gardiner, Godet, Fuller. For an answer 
to objections, see Blunt, Scriptural Coincidences, 256, note. 


Part 1V.] FIRST CIRCUIT IN GALILEE, 249 


tations as to His future work. It will be noted that no objection 
was now made by anyone that these healings were on the 
Sabbath. 

From the synagogue the Lord proceeded to the house of 
Simon and Andrew, where He healed Simon’s wife’s mother. 
As mention is made by John (i. 44) of Bethsaida, as the city of 
Andrew and Peter, it has been conjectured that the house at 
Capernaum was that of the parents of Simon’s wife ; but against 
this is the expression “house of Simon and Andrew,” which 
implies the joint ownership of the two brothers. It is therefore 
more probable that they had now left Bethsaida and taken up 
their residence at Capernaum.' The healing of Peter’s wife’s 
mother seems to have been at the close of the synagogue service, 
and before evening, for at evening all that were diseased and 
possessed were brought to Him. The synagogue service closed 
at or before noon, and it may be inferred from the fact that 
she ‘ministered unto them,” that she served them at the table 
at the midday meal. According to Josephus, the hour of this 
mea! was, on the Sabbath, the sixth, or twelve o’clock. That 
the sick should wait till the sun was gone down (Mark i. 32), 
may be referred to the great scrupulosity of the Jews in regard 
to the Sabbath. 


May. 781., °A. DB. 28: 


The next morning, rising up early, Jesus goes out intoa Marx i. 35-37, 
solitary place to pray. Simon and others go out toseek Him Luks iy. 42. 
because the multitude waits for Him. He replies, that He Marv, iv. 23. 
must also preach in the neighboring towns. He goes preach- Mark i. 38-39. 
ing in the synagogues and working miracles. LUKE iy. 438-4. 


This quick departure from Capernaum may perhaps be ex- 
plained from the Lord’s desire that a period of reflection should 
follow the surprise and wonder which His words and works had 
excited in the minds of the people. Their astonishment at the 
supernatural power He manifested, and their readiness to come 
to Him as a healer of the sick, did not prove the possession of 
true faith. He, therefore, will leave them to meditate on what 
they have seen and heard, and depart to visit the other cities 


1 This may be a slight confirmatian of the supposition that there was but one 
Bethsaida, and that east of the Jordan. 


1s 


250 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV 


and villages of Galilee,’ probably, as has been suggested, follow 
ing some fixed order of visitation. 

That this, the Lord’s first circuit with His disciples, must 
have continued some time, appears from the statements of the 
Evangelists (Mark i. 39-ii. 1; Luke iv. 44; Matt. iv. 23), though 
their language may, perhaps, describe His general activity 
rather than any particular period of it. The expression in 
Mark ii. 1, di jjepv, “after some days,” is indefinite, and its 
length must be otherwise determined. The attempt of Gres- 
well to show, from the number of places He would visit, and 
the length of the stay He would make in each, that the dura- 
tion of a circuit would never be less than three months, and 
probably never less than four, rests upon no sound basis. Ellicott 
(168), going to the other extreme, makes this circuit to have 
lasted only four or five days. It is intrinsically improbable 
that, as Greswell supposes, Jesus should have journeyed now 
wholly around Galilee, keeping on its boundary lines. What 
particular parts of the province He at this time visited, we have 
no data to decide; but it is certain that early in His ministry 
He visited the cities of Bethsaida and Chorazin, adjacent to 
Capernaum, and labored much in them, though of these labors 
there is little or no mention (Matt. xi. 21). His fame rapidly 
spread, and soon the people from the regions adjacent to Galilee 
began to gather to Him. 

Of His works of healing during the first circuit, no instance 
is given, unless the healing of the leper (Matt. viii. 2; Luke v. 
12; Mark i. 40) took place at this time. Matthew places it 
immediately after the Sermon on the Mount. Luke introduces 
it with no mark of time: “And it came to pass when He was 
in a certain city,” etc. Mark connects it with the first circuit in 
Galilee, but with no mention of place. That this healing is not 
chronologically placed by Matthew, appears from the whole 


4 Itis said by Schtirer, ii. 1. 154, that the New Testament and Josephus uniformly 
distinguish between the two notions, city or town — woAcs —and village—xouy. Once 
the term xwo7dAes is used, Mark i. 38, meaning towns which only enjoyed the rank of 
a village. The village was in some way subordinate to the town, and the smaller towns 
to the larger. See Weiss, ii. 510. The several Evangelists in one or two instances, apply 
these different terms to the-same place. Thus, Bethsaida is called by Mark viii. 22, 23, a 
xwpn; Luke ix. 10, a woAcs. See Matt. xi. 20. Bethany, Bethlehem, Bethphage, Em- 
maus, are villages; Capernaum, Nain, Chorazin, Ephraim, are cities. 


———— 


Part tv] RETURN TO CAPERNAUM. 251 


arrangement of chapters viii. and ix. The first verse of chapter 
vill. more properly belongs to the conclusion of the history of 
the Sermon on the Mount; verse second begins the narrative of 
healings and other miracles, of which ten particular examples 
are successively recorded, but without regard to the exact order 
of time in which they occurred. After healing the leper, Jesus 
commands him to go and show himself to the priests, and to 
say nothing to any one else of the miracle (Matt. viii 4). This 
command of silence plainly implies that the miracle had been 
done privately, and not in the presence of the multitude; and 
could not have been, therefore, as He came from the Mount, for 
great crowds then followed Him. Nor in the presence of the 
people could a leper have approached Him.’ This command to 
keep silence the leper disobeys, and everywhere publishes abroad 
what Jesus had done. This wonderful cure, for leprosy was 
deemed incurable, made the people throng to Him in such 
crowds, that He could no more enter into any city.?_ It is said 
by some that He was made unclean by touching the leper, and 
therefore was forbidden to enter the city by the local magistrates; 
this is not probable. He was obliged to retire to desert, or 
uninhabited places, to avoid them; but even then they gath- 
ered to Him from every quarter. (For the order in Matthew, 
Bengel, Quandt, Godet; for an earlier period, Rob., Gardiner, 
Caspari, Ellicott.) 

If, then, the healing of the leper be placed during this cir- 
cuit, it was probably during the latter part of it. As He pro- 
ceeded from place to place He healed such sick persons as were 
brought to Him, and the reports of these cures spreading in 
every direction, all in every city would be brought so soon as 
His presence was known. The leprosy may have been one of 
the last forms of disease He healed, partly because of want of 
faith on the part of the lepers, and partly because it was difficult 
for them, amidst such crowds, to get access to Him. But why 
in this case should silence be enjoined? And why, after He 
had wrought so many other cures, should this have aroused so 


1 Greswell, ii. 296, note, infers that Jesus was in some house apart when the leper 
applied to Him, and that his cure took place in private. Contra, Godet: “* A leper would 
hardly have been able to make his way into a house.’’ See Eders. i. 496, note. 

2 Or into the city, i. e. Capernaum. So Norton. R. VY. “a city.” 


252 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


much attention as to make it necessary for Him to avoid the 
cities, and go into uninhabited places? The most probable 
answer is, that the public proclamation of this miracle gave the 
p2ople such conceptions of His mighty power to heal, that all 
thronged to Him to be healed, and thus His teachings, the moral 
side of His work, were thrust into the shade. It was the word 
which He wished to make prominent, and the work was but 
subsidiary. He would not that the people should merely 
wonder after Him as a miracle-worker, but should learn through 
His words the true nature of the redemption He came to pro- 
claim, and so be able to understand His works as redemptive. 


Karty Summer, 781. A. D. 28. 


After some time, the Lord returns to Capernaum. So Mark ii, 1-12. 
soon as it is known that He is returned, the multitudes begin 
to gather, bringing their sick, whom He heals. The Phari- 
sees and doctors of the law from all parts of the land come LuKE y. 17-26. 
to Capernaum to see and hear the new prophet. A paralytic 
is brought to His house upon a bed, whom He heals, forgiyv- Matt. ix. 2b. 
ing his sins. This awakens the indignation of the Phari- 
sees, who regard him as a blasphemer. Leaving the city, Mark ii. 13, 14. 
He goes to the seaside and there teaches. Afterward walk- Marv. ix. 9. 
ing on the shore, He sees Levi, the publican, sitting at the 
receipt of custom, whom He calls to follow Him. LUKE Vv. 27, 28. 
The order of Mark, who places the healing of the paralytic 
after the return to Capernaum, is plainly the right one.’ Mat- 
thew in his grouping of the miracles in chapters viii. and ix., 
does not follow the order of time. Luke narrates it after the 
healing of the leper, but without specifying time or place. He 
mentions, however, the fact, that there were “Pharisees and 
doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every 
town of Galilee, and Judea, and Jerusalem; and the power of 
the Lord was present to heal them.” (W. and H., Tisch., for 
dutovc have autév. In R. V., “The power of the Lord was with 
Him to heal”). It is not wholly clear who these persons were, 
or why they were now present. Greswell (ii. 298) cites Josephus 
to show that they were ‘a sort of village school masters, 
or a class of inferior municipal magistrates, who might conse- 


1 So Robinson, Tischendorf, Alford, Greswell. As to the details of this healing 
see Eders. i. 502. 


——— ea 


Part IV.] THE CALL OF LEVI. 253 


quently be met with everywhere.” So Edersheim (i. 87) speaks 
of the scribes as having civil administration in villages and town- 
ships. (As to the scribes as teachers, see i. 93 ff.). Schirer 
(ii. 1. 333) describes them as men who made acquaintance with 
the law a profession, and who, rather than the priests, were at 
this time its zealous guardians, and the real teachers of the peo- 
ple. Whether these are to be distinguished from the scribes 
who came down from Jerusalem at a later period to watch Him 
(Mark iii. 22), is in dispute. Most suppose them to have been 
present with evil intent, but it is possible that they came to be 
healed, or to see and hear Him whose fame had gone so widely 
abroad. There is no distinction taken by the Evangelist 
between those from Galilee and those from Judza and Jerusa- 
lem, as if the latter were present from any special cause. At 
this period of the Lord’s career, the nature of His work was 
very imperfectly understood, and many in every part of the land 
and of every class, looking for the Messiah, would be naturally 
attracted to one who showed such wonderful power in word and 
deed. But in a little time as His teachings became more dis- 
tinctly known, His disregard of merely legal righteousness, 
His neglect of their traditions, His high claims, awakened great 
and general hostility. We see here how these scribes, who 
came, perhaps hoping to find in Him their Messiah, perhaps to 
judge by personal observation how far the popular reports 
respecting Him were true, were turned into enemies and 
accusers when He said to the paralytic, ‘Thy sins be forgiven 
thee,” which was to speak blasphemy, because He assumed a 
prerogative which belonged to God only. 

There are several allusions to the Lord’s teaching by the 
seaside. Whether He now stood upon the shore, or entered a 
boat, does not appear. It was not, however, till afterward 
(Mark iii. 9) that He commanded that a small ship should wait 
on Him. Thomson (i. 548) speaks of the small creeks or inlets 
near Tell Hum, “where the ship could ride in safety only a few 
feet from the shore, and where the multitude, seated on both 
sides, and before the boat, could listen without distraction or 
fatigue. Asif on purpose to furnish seats, the shore on both 
sides of those narrow inlets is piled up with smooth boulders of 


254 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


basalt.” Others find a more convenient place along the shelvy- 
ing beach further to the south. 

The road from Damascus to the cities along ..e coast passed 
by “Jacob’s bridge” over the Jordan, and thence along the 
northern shore of the lake. It is probable that the place of toll, 
where Levi sat, was upon the road, near its entrance into the 
city.. The manner of this call, like the call of Simon and 
Andrew, and James and John from their work as fishermen, 
presupposes a prior acquaintance of Jesus with Levi. The tax- 
gatherer, from his occupation and local position, must have been 
aware of ail that was taking place in the neighborhood, and 
could not easily have been ignorant of the Lord’s person and 
work. Not improbably also, he was already a disciple in the 
wider sense of the term, this not involving the giving up of his 
usual calling. It would appear that the call was given on the 
same day in which Jesus taught the people, and soon after His 
discourse was ended.? 

By some this call to Levi is placed after his election to the 
Apostleship. Having been already chosen one of the Twelve, 
he returned to his ordinary labors ; and now, they say, was called 
to enter upon his apostolic duties, to leave all and follow Christ. 
But this in itself is exceedingly improbable, and we shall soon 
see that the election to the apostleship is later. 

The call of Levi to stand in such intimate relations to the 
Lord, must have been a stumbling-block to all the Pharisaic 
party, and to all those in whose hearts national pride and hatred 
of foreign rule were ardent. The occupation of the publican 
was odious, if not in itself disgraceful, as a sign and proof of 
their national degradation ; and the selection of a disciple from 
this class to be His constant attendant, by one who claimed to 
be the Messiah, must have strongly prejudiced many against 
Him and His work.’ 

Such selection implies, also, that already the Lord was turn- 


1 See Lichtenstein, 230; Herz., Encyc., xv. 161. 

2 Bleek, Synoptische Erklarung, i. 384. As to the identity of Matthew and Leyi, see 
Winer, ii. 61; Godet, on Luke v. 27; Eders., i. 574. 

8 “The Talmud,” says Lightfoot, iii. 61, hath this canon: ‘** A Pharisee that turns 
publican, they turn him out of his order.’* See Eders., i. 515 ff.: ‘‘ Levi was not only a 
publican, but of the worst kind, a douanier a custom-house official,” and as such most 
obnoxious. 


én el 


Part 1V.] PLUCKING THE EARS OF CORN. 255 


ing away from the legally righteous, the Pharisees, because His 
words had so little entrance into their hearts; and was turning to 
those who, though despised as publicans and sinners, were never- 
theless ready to receive the truth. Unable to draw the priests 
into His service, He calls fishermen ; and what He cannot ac- 
complish because of the unbelief of Pharisees, He will do through 
the faith of publicans. 

Many bring the feast which Levi made for the Lord (Luke 
vy. 29; see also, Matt. ix. 10 ; Mark ii. 15) into immediate con- 
nection with his call.’ Still there is nothing in the language of 
the Evangelists that implies sequence, and as Capernaum doubt- 
less continued to be Levi’s residence, to which he frequently 
returned from his journeyings with the Lord, the feast may with 
equal likelihood have taken place at a later time, and be here 
related, in order to bring together all that concerned him 
personally.’ 

This point, and the chronological connection between this 
feast and the healing of the daughter of Jairus (Matt. ix. 18-25), 
will be examined when we reach this miracle. 

Greswell (il. 397) attempts to show that the feast of Matthew 
(Matt. ix. 10) was different from that mentioned by Mark and 
Luke; that the first was later, and not in the house of Levi; 
and that at this feast, only the disciples of John were present. 
This view removes some difficulties, but the arguments in its 
favor are more ingenious than convincing. 


Karty Summer, 781. A. D. 28. 


During this sojourn in Capernaum, the Lord with His Marv. xii. 1-8. 
disciples walks through the fields upon a Sabbath, and Mark ii. 23-28, 
plucks and eats the ears of corn. This is observed by LUKE yi. 1-5. 
some of the Pharisees who are watching Him, and who 
complain of it to Him as aviolation of the Sabbath. He 
answers them by referring to what David did, and asserts 
His power as Son of man over the Sabbath. Upon an- LUKE vi. 6-11. 
other Sabbath He heals a man with a withered hand, Marv. xii. 9-14. 
which leads the Pharisees to conspire with the Herodians MaRrkx iii. 1-6. 
to destroy Him. 


1 Lichtenstein, Tischendorf, Stier, Godet, Caspari. 

2 So Lightfoot, Newcome, Townsend, Robinson. Newcome (259) refers to the Har- 
mony of Chemnitins, ‘‘ where it appears that Levi’s call and feast were separated in the 
most ancient harmonies from Tatian, A. D. 170 to Gerson, A. D. 1400.” 


256 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV 


Both the time and place of this event — the plucking of the 
ears of corn— have been much disputed; and both are there- 
fore to be considered, It is mentioned by all the Synoptists, 
by Matthew in one connection, by Mark and Luke in another, 
but by none in such a way as to determine its place, or its 
chronological position. Its importance in this respect makes it 
necessary that we give it a careful examination. 


All agree that it took place on a Sabbath, and Luke (vi. 1) defines 
this Sabbath as ‘‘the second Sabbath after the first,” or ‘‘ second- 
first — ¢v caBBdry devreporpéry. But what was this second-first Sab- 
bath? The first point is as to the true reading. Many, on various 
grounds, omit the adjective. (So Meyer, W. and H., Bleek; Weiss 
regards the text as corrupted; Riddle, that a marginal note has found 
its way into the text. Retained by Tisch., Winer, Wies., Ellicott, 
Keil, McClel., Eders.) 

If rejected as not genuine, the text will read: ‘And it came to 
pass on a Sabbath that He was going through the cornfields.” (So 
R. VY.) In this case the only clew to the time of the year is the fact, 
that ‘‘the disciples plucked the ears of corn and did eat.” The 
grain, therefore, was ripe, and from this we may infer that it could 
not have been earlier than the time set for the reaping of the barley 
harvest, for it is generally accepted that the sheaf of first-fruits 


offered at the Passover (Levit. xxiii. 10), and before which no grain - 


was reaped, was of barley; but whether the barley is here meant is in 
question. Itis said by Lightfoot (on Matthew xii. 1): “ Barley was 
sown at the coming in of winter, and when the Passover came in, be- 
came ripe, so that from that time barley-harvest took its beginning.” 
The wheat harvest was later, and not gathered till May or June. 
Robinson speaks of seeing wheat ripe upon the 9th of May, and he 
also speaks of the people near Tiberias as engaged in gathering the 
wheat harvest upon the 19th of June. The uncertainty as to the kind 
of grain gathered by the disciples, whether wheat or barley; and also 
as to the place, whether in Juda or Galilee, on the highlands or low- 
lands, permits us to put this event either in April, or May, or June. 
The field was not yet reaped, but it was not unusual to let the grain 
remain in the field some time after ripening. Thomson says that the 
Syrian harvest extends through several months, and ‘‘ the wheat is suf. 
fered to become dead ripe, and as dry as tinder before it is cut.” 
Even if, in the case before us, the harvest generally was reaped, this 
particular field may still have been ungathered ; or possibly this grain 
had been left for gleaners. 

But if we accept the reading, ‘‘second-first,” what was the Sab- 


———=-—— 


Part IV.] PLUCKING THE EARS OF CORN. 257 


bath so distinguished? As no other writer uses this designation, shall 
we say that it was invented by Luke? This is not likely; we may 
rather suppose that it was a technical term, the meaning of which he 
supposed his readers to be acquainted with. But its meaning is not 
plain. There are two suppositions: ‘‘second” may be understood as 
defining ‘‘ first ;’ there being two or more first Sabbaths, of which one is 
marked out as the second. (‘‘The second of two firsts” Meyer.) 
Or ‘‘second”” may be understood as marking some well-defined Sab- 
bath, from which second Sabbath others are counted; the first after 
the second, the second after the second, the third after the second, 
ete. (So Campbell and Norton in their translations; Rob., Gres.) 

If we adopt the first supposition, there must be a class of two or 
more first-Sabbaths which can be numerically distinguished; and we 
must ask after the several classes of first-Sabbaths which have been 
proposed. 

I. 1. That which takes a cycle of seven years from the end of 
one Sabbatic year to another, the year commencing at Nisan or April; 
of these seven yearly first-Sabbaths the first Sabbath of the second 
year is the second-first. But if, as is generally agreed, the Sabbatic 
year began in October not in April, this would bring the second-first 
Sabbath into the Autumn. (See Winer, ii. 348; Wies., Syn., 204.) 

2. That which, dividing the year into two parts, the ecclesiastical 
and the civil, the one beginning with Nisan (April) the other with Tizri 
(October) finds two yearly first-Sabbaths, the first-first in Tizri, the 
second-first in Nisan; or this order may be reversed if we begin the 
year with Nisan. 

3. That which, dividing the year into twelve months, finds 
twelve first-Sabbaths, or the first Sabbath of each month. The 
second-first is the first Sabbath of the second month. If Nisan 
(April) be the first month, Ijar (May) is the second month. 

4. That which finds a class of first-Sabbaths marked out by the 
three great feasts, Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. Of these 
that of Pentecost would be the second-first. 

5. That which takes a cycle of seven weeks from the second day 
of the Passover, which was a Sabbatic day, to Pentecost; the Sabbaths 
of these seven weeks making a class of first Sabbaths, the second of 
which is the second-first. 

Il. If we take the second view of the meaning of the phrase, 
“second-first,” that it is the first after a second, we have two chief 
explanations: 

1. The second day of the Passover (Levit. xxiii. 10) is selected 
as the starting-point from which the Sabbaths are counted to Pente- 


258 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


cost; the first Sabbath after this second day being the second-first, 
and in like order. 

2. The fifteenth and twenty-first days of Nisan being feast 
Sabbaths, if a week Sabbath came between them, it was called the 
second-first. 

Still another solution has been proposed. The first day of a new 
month being determined by the appearance of the new moon, when 
this could not be ascertained, the day was counted as the 30th of 
the old month, and the next day as the commencement of the new. 
In this case both days were sanctified, and the first called the first 
Sabbath, and the second the second-first. 

With the uncertainty as to the right reading, and the multiplicity 
of interpretations, it is obvious that the designation of this Sabbath 
as the second-first gives no certain chronological datum. 

It is a valid objection to some of them that they bring the pluck- 
ing of the corn too early, before the offering of the wave sheaf, and so 
before the legal time. To others it may be objected that they are 
merely ingenious conjectures, sustained by no proof. That which 
has the larger number of names in its favor is that which is said to 
have been originally propounded by Scaliger, and maintained by Light- 
foot (in loco, also on Matt. xii. 1). ‘‘It was the first Sabbath after 
the second day of the Passover.” If the Passover this year began on 
March 30, the plucking of the corn was early in April. Others pre- 
fer the view which regards the second-first Sabbath as the first after 
the second of the three great feasts, that after the Passover being the 
first-first, and that after Pentecost, the second-first. In like manner 
we have in common use the designations, the first Sunday after 
Epiphany, first after Easter, and the like. Brown (657) remarks: 
‘* Of all the explanations known to me, this seems the best, indeed, 
the only likely one.” Clinton calls it ‘‘ equally probable” as the 
first mentioned. But eminent names can be cited for other inter- 
pretations. (For a brief statement of opinions, see Winer, ii. 348, 
Greswell, ii. 300; Meyer and Godet, in loco.) 

The bearing of this incident on the point of the length of the 
Lord’s public ministry, is to be noted. It is held by those who affirm 
that there were but three Passovers, and consequently that it contin- 
ued but little more than two years, that the plucking of the corn must 
have been just after the Passover mentioned in John vi. 4, the second 
one. If so, it must have been just at the close of the Galilean minis- 
try. It is said by Edersheim (ii. 54) that it was just before the feed- 
ing of the four thousand; and if so, the whole Judean and Galilean 
ministries must be compressed within a period of little more than a 
year, leaving nearly a year for His last journey from Galilee to Jeru 
salem. This statement is its own condemnation. 


Part IV.] HEALING THE MAN WITH A WITHERED HAND. 259 


In this chaos of interpretations, the mention of this Sabbath 
as the second-first gives us no certain chronological aid. The 
circumstance, however, that the disciples plucked the ears of 
corn and did eat, defines the season of the year as that when the 
corn was ripe. The kind of grain is not mentioned, whether 
barley which is earliest, or wheat which was later. Many 
have assumed, with Lightfoot, that this corn was barley, but 
this is not easily rubbed in the hands, and it was the food of the 
very poor, and of horses. Though the disciples may have eaten 
it in their hunger, yet wheat is the more probable grain. But 
if it were barley, the Passover of the year beginning on the 30th 
March, the barley harvest would begin about the Ist April, and 
continue till May or later. If the corn was wheat, the harvest 
would begin some weeks later, and many fields may have re- 
mained unreaped as late as June, much depending on the posi- 
tion of the field as to latitude and elevation. 

Thus no definite chronological datum can be obtained in this 
way. We have only the general result that the plucking of the 
corn may have been in April or May or June. If we regard 
this second-first Sabbath as the first after Pentecost, which was 
on this year the 19th May, we must put the event about the 
end of this month. If this be correct, the ministry of the Lord 
in Galilee had now continued about two months. 

Where did this event take place? It is narrated by all the 
Synoptists as occurring just before the healing of the man with 
the withered hand, and this healing was probably in the syna- 
gogue at Capernaum. ‘And He entered again into the syna- 
gogue” (Mark iii. 1), that is, the synagogue already mentioned.’ 
The article is omitted by Tisch., W. and H., and others, yet 
if rendered “into a synagogue,” the reference would not neces- 
sarily be to i. 39, “« And He preached in their synagogues through- 
out all Galilee,” but rather to i. 21, where the synagogue at 
Capernaum is mentioned. This appears also from the mention 
of His withdrawal to the sea after the healing (Mark iii. 7 ; see 
also Luke vi. 6). That the field where the ears were plucked 
was not far distant from Capernaum, appears from Matthew xii. 
9, for the Pharisees who had blamed the disciples for that act, 


1 Alexander, Meyer. 


260 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


are spoken of as members of that synagogue. ‘ He went into 
their synagogue.” ' They were, therefore, the Pharisees of 
Capernaum, and the field of corn was in the neighborhood of 
that city, and within the limits of a Sabbath day’s journey. 

We may, then, give the following order of events as one 
intrinsically probable. The Lord, after His return from His first 
circuit, remained some days or weeks at Capernaum, and upon a 
Sabbath walked out with His disciples through the fields in the 
vicinity of the city. As He had already, in the opinion of the 
Pharisees, broken the sanctity of the Sabbath by healing upon it 
(Mark i. 23 and 30), they followed Him to watch Him, perhaps to 
note whether His walk upon that day was longer than the law 
permitted (Acts i. 12). Seeing His disciples plucking and rub- 
bing the ears of corn in their hands, they saw in the act a viola- 
tion of the law. It has sometimes been said that the Pharisees 
did not think it sinful to pull and eat the grain, but it was so to 
rub it in their hands, all preparation of food being forbidden. 
This is doubtful. Lightfoot says: “The plucking of ears of 
corn on the Sabbath was forbidden by their canons, verbatim: 
‘He that reapeth corn on the Sabbath, to the quantity of a fig, is 
guilty. And plucking corn is as reaping.’”? It is said by 
Edersheim (ii. 56) that the act involved two sins, — first, that 
of plucking the ears; second, that of rubbing them. If done pre. 
sumptuously, or without necessity, the punishment was death by 
stoning, and hence the Lord’s defense of the disciples. His an- 
swer to their complaints could only have angered them still more, 
and when, therefore, He entered the following Sabbath into 
the synagogue (Luke vi. 6), it was to be expected that they 
would carefully watch all that He did to find some sufficient 
ground of accusation against Him. His renewed violation of 
the Sabbath by healing the man with a withered hand, added 
to their indignation, and they now began to plot how they might 
destroy Him. 

Luke (vi. 6) defines the time of this work of healing as “on 
another Sabbath.” That this was the Sabbath immediately fol- 


1 Meyer, Norton. But others do not accept this; see Keil. DeWette: ‘‘ the people 
of the place where He then was.” 

2 See also Meyer on Matt. x.i. 1; and Eders., ii. 56 ff., and as to Rabbinical Sabbath 
law, App., xvii. 


Part IV.] HEALING THE MAN WITH A WITHERED HAND. 261 


lowing that on which He walked through ‘he corn-field, is not 
said, though it may have been.t The alliance of the Herodians 
with the Pharisees does not prove that Herod himself had at 
this time any knowledge of Jesus, or took any steps against 
Him. The Herodians were those among the people who, though 
hating the Roman rule, favcred the pretensions of Herod’s 
family to kingly power (Lindsay, on Mark iii. 6). In case of 
national independence, this family should reign rather than the 
house of the Maccabees, or any other claimant. They were 
never numerous, for the great body of the nation looked upon 
that family as foreigners and usurpers. ‘Why the Pharisees 
and Herodians,” says Alford, “should now combine, is not 
apparent.” The Herodians would, however, be naturally jealous 
and watchful of any one whom they supposed to put forth 
any Messianic pretensions; and the Pharisees being angry at 
Jesus on religious grounds, yet unable to take any measures 
against Him without the assent of Herod, a union of the 
two for His destruction was very easily made. Indeed, the 
Herodians may have been themselves of the Pharisaic party. 
We need not suppose that this conspiracy against Him as yet 
included others than the Pharisees and Herodians of Capernaum 
and its immediate vicinity (see Matt. xii. 14; Mark iii. 6), 
and seems to have been the beginning of the organized hostility 
to Him in Galilee. Doubtless, very soon after this, His enemies 
here took counsel with His enemies at Jerusalem, and the con- 
spiracy against Him became general. 

It appears from these narratives that, almost from the very 
beginning of His Galilean work, the Lord encountered the active 
hostility of the Pharisees of that province. The grounds of offense 
may be stated in general terms: Ist, that He disregarded their 
traditions in not a few points, as in fasting, in purifications ; 2d, 
He associated with publicans and sinners ; 3d, He broke the Sab- 
bath ; 4th, He assumed the right to forgive sins. Of these, the 
breaking of the Sabbath and forgiveness of sins were the most 
offensive. At the feast (John v. 1), He had aroused the anger 


1 Wieseler (287) conjectures that it was a feast Sabbath, and the day following that 
mentioned in verse Ist. This seems to haye little or no ground for it. Meyer’s assertion, 
that Matthew (xii. 9) puts the two events on the same Sabbath in opposition to Luke, hag 
no sufficient basis. See Keil, in doco, 


= 


262 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


cf the Pharisees at Jerusalem by healing the impotent man on 
the Sabbath (verses 16 and 18); and at Capernaum He con- 
tinued again and again to heal upon that day, and in the syna- 
gague itself.'| Their fanatical zeal could not allow such viola- 
tions of the law to pass unnoticed, and as Jesus defended them on 
the ground of His divine right to work, even on the Sabbath, 
He seemed to them not only a Sabbath-breaker, but also a 
olasphemer. At first they plotted secretly against Him, the peo- 
ple at large being friendly to Him. While in the full flush of 
His popularity, they dared take no steps openly against Him, but 
waited till some imprudence, or error, or folly on His part, 
or the fickleness of the multitude, might put Him in their 
power. There was early an active and constant correspondence 
between the scribes and Pharisees in Galilee and those in 
Jerusalem ; and at intervals deputations from the latter came 
down to consult with the former, and to devise means to hinder 
Him in His work, and to bring Him to punishment. As 
yet the fact that He had broken the Sabbath by healing upon it, 
does not seem to have turned the popular feeling at all against 
Him, nor even the assertion of His power to forgive sins. This 
was doubtless due to His many miracles of healing, which for a 
time repressed all open attempts against Him. 

It is at this point that we may properly consider a most im- 
portant feature of the Galilean ministry, —the many miracles 
of the Lord. On this first Sabbath in Capernaum He healed in 
the synagogue a man possessed of a devil, then the mother in- 
law of Peter, and, after the sun was set, all in the city who came 
to be healed (Matt. viii. 16). The same is said by Mark (i. 32 ff.), 
and by Luke (iv. 40): ‘‘ Now when the sun was setting, all they 
that had any sick with divers diseases brought them unto Him ; 
and He laid His hands on every one of them, and healed them; and 
devils also came out of many.” And this universality of healing 
was not confined to the beginning of His ministry, or to any one 
place. It is said by Matthew (iv. 23) that “Jesus went about 
ail Galilee, . . . healing all manner of sickness and all 
manner of disease among the people.” And this is often re- 


1 There are seven recorded cases of healing on the Sabbath, and a general intima 
tion of many more. (Mark i, 34. See Trench, Mir., 250.) 


Part IV.] HEALING THE SICK. 263 


peated (ix. 35; xii. 15; xiv. 14; xv. 30; xix. 2; xxi. 14; 
Mark iii. 10; Luke v. 15; vi. 17 ff; vii. 21). 

Not only did the Lord heal all who came to Him, but He 
gave also like power to heal to His disciples when He sent them 
forth as His witnesses. Thus it is said by Matthew (x. 1): 
“When He had called unto Him His twelve disciples, He gave 
them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal 
all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.” (See Mark 
iii. 15; Luke ix. 1.) And when the Seventy were sent forth, 
they were empowered to heal the sick in every city that received 
them. (Luke x. 9.) 

Let us inquire as to the significance of this plenitude of 
miracles during the Galilzan ministry. 

A miracle may be wrought by any one sent of God with a 
message or to do a work, as a credential —a means to beget 
faith ; or in answer to a special request springing from faith; 
or as a necessary element in the work to be done. Thus in the 
case of Moses (Ex. iv. 1-9), certain signs were wrought by him 
before the people as his credentials, proofs that God had sent 
him. Afterward he did many miracles, at the Red Sea and in 
the wilderness, not as credentials, but in the prosecution of His 
work of delivering the people from their bondage. 

In the case of the Lord, the signs wrought by Him at 
Jerusalem before the rulers and people (John ii. 23) did not be- 
get faith. He, therefore, went into Galilee “preaching the gos- 
pel of the kingdom of God.” And it is in the connection of this 
preaching of the kingdom with the healing of all the sick, that 
we find the key to this wonderful miraculous activity. His 
miracles in Galilee were not wrought as credentials, though they 
were such, nor were they, for the most part, in answer to 
prayers of faith ; they were proofs, outward and visible to all, 
of the presence of the kingdom of God. He was the Redeemer, 
and His whole work was redemptive —a prefiguration of what 
should be when redemption was completed. He did not simply 
proclaim a coming kingdom, but showed it to be now present, 
in that devils were cast out and the sick healed. He said on 
one occasion to the Pharisees : “If I by the Spirit of God cast out 
devils, then the Kingdom of God is come unto you” (Matt. xii 


264 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part Iv. 


28, Luke xi. 20). This supremacy over evil, manifested, as was 
necessarily the case, in external forms, was to all, who knew 
the relation of sin to death, of moral to physical disorder, the 
sure proof that He was the healer of the soul as well as the 
body; that He came to destroy the works of the devil, and to 
teach the truth, and to show forth the righteousness of God. 

That this readiness to heal all who came to Him should 
have gathered great multitudes around Him, was to be expected. 
He did not demand of them individual faith as a condition of 
healing, and we know from the result that in most cases faith 
in Him did not follow. But His work, while it testified that 
He was the King, and that the kingdom was present in His 
Person, answered another purpose. It enabled Him to find 
those among the multitudes who felt the burden of sin and 
longed for spiritual deliverance, and came to Him that they 
might have life; and from these were His true disciples 
gathered. 

But the question may be asked, Why did not the Lord begin 
His ministry in Judea with such general healing? Would it 
not have been to all the strongest confirmatory evidence that He 
was the Messiah? A little reflection will show us that such a 
putting forth of healing power would have been quite incon- 
sistent with His purpose in the first stage of His ministry. 
Had He then done this, the holy city would have been crowded 
by multitudes from every part of the land, and from all Syria; 
and the tumult and excitement consequent would have been 
destructive of that calm self-examination and searching of heart, 
and study of the Scriptures, which He sought to effect in the 
rulers. For this the quiet of His baptismal work, a work call- 
ing for repentance and confession of sin, was best fitted. It 
was not the mere number of His miracles that was to decide 
whether He was sent of God; and to multiply them as proofs 
before those who had no real discernment of their nature and 
purpose, and might ascribe them to demons, could only have 
afforded new occasions for dispute and strife. To those who sat 
in Moses’ seat He must first show that Moses wrote of Him. 


I Ee 


Part |V.] JESUS WITHDRAWS TO THE SEA-SHORE. 265 


Mipsummer, 781. A. D. 28. 


After healing the man with a withered hand, Jesus Marv. xii. 15-21. 
withdraws to the seashore. Here great multitudes from Mark iii. 7-12. 
all parts of the land resort to Him, and He heals many. Mar. iy. 25. 

As they press upon Him to touch Him, He directs that 

a small ship be prepared to wait upon Him. Leaving 

the seaside, He goes up into a neighboring mountain and LUKE yi. 12-16. 
spends the night in prayer. In the morning He calls the MARrkx iii. 13-19, 
disciples to Him, and from them chooses the twelve 

Apostles. The multitudes now gathering to Him, He pro- Marv. v., vi., vii. 
ceeds to deliver the discourse called the Sermon on the LUKE vi. 17-49. 
Mount. 

From Matthew (xii. 15) it would appear that Jesus was 
aware of the purpose of the Pharisees, and therefore avoided 
them. He would not, except so far as was necessary, come into 
collision with them, or expose His work to injury through their 
opposition. It was for this reason that, having healed all the 
sick among the multitudes that followed Him, He charged them 
that they should not make Him known (verse 16). He was now 
seeking for the humble and repentant, all in whom He could 
discern any sense of sin or germs of faith, and He would not for 
their sakes suffer Himself to be forced into a hostile attitude to 
the spiritual leaders of the people. This was the rule of His 
conduct, as it had been prophetically laid down by the prophet 
Isaiah (xlii. 2): ‘‘He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause His 
voice to be heard in the street.” 

The withdrawal from the city to the seashore (Mark iii. 7), 
while it thus had for one end, to avoid His enemies, seems also to 
have been to find a more convenient place for teaching and healing. 
In the city, He was exposed to constant interruption through the 
eagerness of the sick and their friends, who pressed upon Him 
to touch Him; and when at the seaside, to secure personal free- 
dom He was compelled to order a boat to attend upon Him, 
that He might, when necessary, use it as a pulpit to address the 
multitude standing before Him on the shore, and perhaps also 
withdraw Himself wholly from them by crossing the lake. 

The fame of Jesus seems at this time to have reached every 
part of the land. Crowds came, not only from Galilee and 
Judea, but also from Idumza and from beyond Jordan, and 
from the territories about Tyre and Sidon. That so great num- 


12 


266 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD, [Part 1V. 


bers, and from such remote regions, should gather at Capernaum, 
shows that He remained at that city for some time after His re- 
turn from His first circuit. It was, doubtless, not his teachings 
but His miracles of healing, that awakened such general atten- 
tion, and drew such multitudes after Him. Most came attracted 
by His reputation as a healer of the sick. After making all 
allowance for the degraded condition of the present inhabitants 
of Palestine, the following remarks of Thomson (ii. 84) would 
not be inapplicable to the Jews of the Lord’s day: “Should a 
prophet now arise with a tithe of the celebrity of Jesus of 
Nazareth, there would quickly be immense assemblies about 
him from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and 
fiom Juda, and from beyond Jordan. Bad and stupid and 
ignorant and worldly as the people are, their attention would 
be instantly arrested by the name of a prophet, and they wouid 
flock from all parts to see, hear, and be healed. There is an 
irresistible bias in Orientals of all religions to run after the mere 
shadow of a prophet, or a miracle worker.” 

That the choice of the Twelve took place at this time, appears 
from the mention in Mark and Luke of the various parts of the 
country from which the multitudes came. According to Luke 
(vi. 17), they that heard the discourse upon the mount were 
from Judea and Jerusalem, and from the sea-coast of Tyre and 
Sidon. Mark (iii. 7, 8) mentions Galilee, Judza, Jerusalem, 
Idumza, beyond Jordan, and about Tyre and Sidon. Matthew 
(iv. 25), who does not mention the choice of the Apostles, but 
gives the sermon on the Mount, speaks of the great multitudes 
that followed Him from Galilee, Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, 
and beyond Jordan. It was at this point, when He had special 
need of their services, that He selected twelve out of the body of 
His disciples whom He named Apostles. The importance of this 
act demands our consideration. 


As has been already said, the choice of the Twelve had a twofold 
aspect; it looked both to the present, and to the future. They were 
chosen, as said by Mark (iii. 14), ‘‘that they should be with Him, 
and that He might send them forth to preach.” They were to be His 
present helpers in proclaiming the kingdom of God, thus calling the 
attention of their countrymen to Jesus asthe Messiah. But their work 
had its chief significance, as the result showed, not in their present wit- 


EE 


Part IV.]. THE CHOICE OF THE TWELVE. 267 


ness but in their relation to the new election, the Church, of which 
they were to be the foundation. Their choice at this time did not, 
however, show that the Lord had cast off the Jews, but rather that 
He would, if it were possible, save them; and to this end the 
Apostles were to go forth among the people at large, and give the 
utmost publicity to His mission. But to do this they must first them- 
selves be instructed as to His Person and mission; and therefore 
must be with Him in daily intercourse, not only to behold His works 
and hear His words in public, but also to be taught of Him in 
private. 

On what grounds the Lord made this choice just at this time, we 
are not told. It may be that not till now did He find among the 
disciples those whom He judged to be fit for this work; or that the 
concourse of the people from all qu:.rters was now so great that their 
assistance was needed; or that He saw that the efforts of His enemies 
would soon bring His labors in Galilee to an end. 

Without entering into disputed points as to the names and relation- 
ships of the several apostles, we may here note some particulars 
respecting their previous acquaintance with the Lord, and subsequent 
intercourse with Him. He first met, as we have seen, Andrew, 
Simon, and John at Bethabara. Whether James was there then, we do 
not know. Farrar supposes that he was following his calling asa 
fisherman in Galilee; but most infer from the language (John i. 41), 
‘« Andrew findeth first his own brother Simon,” that John found later 
his own brother James. To these four Philip and Nathanael were 
added, so that we may believe that these six accompanied the Lord 
to Cana, and were present at the marriage there, and subsequently 
went with Him to Capernaum (John ii. 12). Whether they went up 
with Him to the Passover when He cleansed the temple, we do not 
know. (It is affirmed by Godet, and denied by Caspari. The words, 
verse 17, ‘‘ His disciples remembered,” etc., are not decisive to show 
that they were with Him when spoken.) But the fact that soon after 
this Passover ‘‘ He came with His disciples into the land of Judea,” 
where they baptized, seems to show that some or all of these six were 
at this time with Him. Since, ‘‘of the many who believed on His 
name ” at the feast (John ii. 23), it is said, ‘‘He did not trust Him- 
self unto them,” it is not probable that He chose any of them to be 
His special helpers. 

It seems, therefore, not improbable that some of His earliest 
disciples were with the Lord during His Judxan ministry; and that 
they returned with Him when He left Judea for Galilee. If from that 
time — December, 781 — to the unnamed feast in March, 782, the Lord 


| 
f 


268 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


lived in retirement, these disciples would return to their homes and 
their several occupations. When He began His Galilean work, He 
called James and John and Andrew and Peter to follow and aid Him, 
but no mention is made of Philip and Nathanael. The only one of 
the Twelve of whom special mention is made as afterward called to 
follow the Lord, is Levi or Matthew. 

Thus we have previous knowledge of seven of the Twelve, but of 
the earlier relation of the others to the Lord,—Thomas, Simon the 
Canaanite, James the son of Alpheus, Thaddeus, and Judas Iscariot, 
we know nothing. They may have been among the believers in Jeru- 
salem at the first Passover, or later at His baptism in Judea; they may 
perhaps have become such after He began His work in Galilee.’ 
Whether they had had any intimation of His purpose to choose them 
as His apostles, we are not told; n.ost suppose that He had previously 
made known to them what He proposed to do. (See the note of Lind- 
say on Mark iii. 14.) It is most improbable that He gave them at that 
time any intimation of their future relations to the Christian Church. 

We may ask whether this choice of the Twelve was known to the 
Pharisees; and if so, how did they regard it? It is said by some 
that at the delivery of the Sermon on the Mount which soon followed, 
the Apostles stood next the Lord, then the disciples in general, 
and then the multitudes, thus forming three groups. If such distine- 
tion of place was made, it must have been seen, and the subsequent 
attendance of the Twelve upon the Lord also noticed, so that His 
enemies would not be ignorant that some step had been taken in the 
way of organizing His disciples, and they would be aroused to watch 
all His movements still more closely. 

Whether some particular mountain is designated by the use of the 
article 9y che Synoptists, 7d gpos, ‘‘the mountain,” R. V., or gen- 
erally, the ridges of hills on the sides of the Lake of Galilee as 
distinguished from the low shores, we cannot easily decide. (See 
Tholuck, Die Bergrede Christi, Gotha, 1872.) The Jews distin- 
guished the face of the country into mountains, plains, and valleys; 
and according to Middleton,? by the mountain is here signified ‘*‘ the 
mountain district as distinguished from the other two.”* It is most 
natural to refer it to some specific and well-known locality; but it is 
plain that the mountain here is not the same mentioned in Matt. xiv. 
23, Mark vi. 46, John vi. 8, where the five thousand were fed, or 


1 Acts i. 21-2. One qualification of an apostle was that he should have beer. with 
tne Lord, ‘‘ beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that He was received up.” 
It is not plain from what point in John’s baptismal work we are to reckon; not from its 
beginning, or from the Lord’s baptism, perhaps from his imprisonment. 

2 Greek Article, 103. 3 See Ebrard, 349; Meyer on Matt. y. 1. 


*, 





Part IV.] THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 269 


that in Matt. xv. 29, where the four thousand were fed. We may 
then rather infer that in each of these cases the mountain is defined 
by the article because supposed to be already well known as the site 
of the event. Where this mountain was, is now only a matter of con- 
jecture. (Hders., i. 524. ‘‘One of those mountain ranges which stretch 
to the north of Capernaum.” So Keil.) Tradition has chosen the hill 
known as the Horns of Hattin from its peculiar shape, and called by 
the Latins the Mount of Beatitudes. It is on the road from Tiberias 
to Nazareth — a ridge about a quarter of a mile in length, running east 
and west. At each end rises a small cone or horn. Its peculiar 
shape attracts the attention of the traveller, and is probably the 
cause of its selection. Robinson contends that there are a dozen 
other mountains in the vicinity of the lake which would answer the 
purpose just as well; and that the tradition which has selected this 
as the site, goes no further back than the 18th century, and is con- 
fined to the Latin Church. As the same tradition places here also 
the feeding of the five thousand, which is certainly an error, we can- 
not attach much importance to it.’ Stanley, however (360), says: 
“The situation so strikingly coincides with the intimations of the 
Gospel narrative as almost to force the inference, that in this instance 
the eye of those who selected the spot was for once rightly guided.” 
With Stanley, Farrar agrees. On the other hand, Edersheim says, 
that ‘‘it is for many reasons unsuitable.” 


We may arrange the events preparatory to the delivery of 
the Sermon on the Mount in the following order. The Lord 
leaving Capernaum in the evening, went to the mount, which 
cannot have been at any great distance, and spent the night 
alone. Very early in the morning, His disciples, probably 
according to His direction, came to Him, and from them He 
selected the Twelve. By this time the multitudes who had 
lodged in Capernaum or in its neighborhood, learning whither 
He had gone, followed Him, and then He addressed them. 

As Matthew (chs. v., vi., vii.) and Luke (vi. 17-49) intro- 
duce their reports of the Sermon on the Mount by the mention 
of differing circumstances, and as their reports differ in many 
points, it has been questioned whether both can refer to the 
same discourse. The various opinions may be thus classified : 
Ist. That they are reports of discourses wholly distinct, and 
spoken at different times, and perhaps, also, at different places.? 


1 Raumer, 32, notc. 2 Patritius, Krafft, Greswea_ 


270 . THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. |Part IV. 


2d. Thatthey are reports of distinct discourses, but spoken suc- 
cessively: the one, before the choice of the Apostles, the other, 
after it; the one, to the disciples, the other, to the multitude, 
the one, sitting upon the mountain, the other, standing upon the 
plain. 3d. That they are two reports of one and the same 
discourse, neither of the Evangelists giving it exactly as it was 
spoken.? 4th. That Matthew has brought together the Lord’s 
words spoken at different times and places — a kind of summary 
of His teachings — while Luke gives a particular discourse as it 
was delivered. 5th. That Matthew’s report is a full and accu- 
rate one of what the Lord said, and that Luke gives a condensed 
account of it, adapting it to his readers. 


To determine which of these views is correct, or how the respect- 
ive discourses of Matthew and Luke stand related to each other, we 
must examine in detail the several points of likeness and unlikeness. 

Ist. Difference of place. Matthew (v. 1) says: ‘‘And seeing 
the multitudes, He went up into a mountain; and when He was set, 
His disciples came unto Him, and He opened His mouth, and taught 
them.” Luke (vi. 17-20) says, that after the choice of the Twelve, 
‘* He came down with them, and stood in the plain (él rérov edwod, 
R. V. ‘‘on a level place”), and the company of His disciples, and a 
great multitude of people . . . which came to hear Him, and to 
be healed of their diseases; and they that were vexed with unclean 
spirits: and they were healed. And the whole multitude sought to 
touch Him, for there went virtue out of Him and healed them all. 
And He lifted up His eyes on His disciples, and said,” ete. Thus, 
according to Matthew, the discourse was delivered by the Lord sit- 
ting upon the side or top of a mountain; according to Luke, after 
He had chosen the Twelve He descended to the plain, and having 
healed the sick, addressed those present. But the latter does not say 
that the discourse was spoken on the plain, although He does not 
mention any re-ascent. Such a re-ascent is however very probable, 
for it is said ‘‘that the whole multitude sought to touch Him”; and 
as, when similarly pressed upon the sea-shore (Mark iii. 9), He entered 
a boat and taught from it, so now He would naturally ascend to a 
point where they could not reach Him, and from which He could 
easily be seen and heard by all.* Some would understand the 
‘‘plain” of Luke of a level spot on the side of the mountain, or at its 





1 Augustine, Lange. 
2 Robinson, Tischendorf, Stier. 
3 So Robinson, Har., 193. 


Part IV.] THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 271 


foot, where the multitude could sit-or stand, this plain itself being, 
in reference to the sea-shore from whence they came, a part of the 
mountain. Thus Stanley, speaking of the hill of Hattin, says: ‘‘ The 
plain on which it stands is easily accessible from the lake, and from 
that plain to the summit is but a few minutes’ walk. The platform 
at the top is evidently suitable for the collection of a multitude, and 
corresponds precisely to the ‘level place,’ mistranslated ‘plain,’ tc 
which He would ‘come down,’ as from one of its higher horns, to 
address the people.” * In this way, all seeming discrepancy between 
Matthew and Luke as to the place disappears. The choice of the 
Twelve was made upon the mountain before the multitude gathered, 
which choice Matthew does not mention. As the Lord beholds the 
people gathering to Him, He goes down witb His disciples to meet 
them upon some level place; aud after heal. ¢ the sick, He seats 
Himself in a position, probably higher up upon the hill, where He 
can be seen and heard by the great crowds, and proceeds to address 
them.’ 

2d. Difference of time. Following his report of the sermon, 
Matthew relates (viii. 2-4) the healing of the leper, as immediately 
taking place. Luke (vii. 2-10) relates the healing of the cen- 
turion’s servant as immediately following. As these events were sep- 
arated by a considerable interval of time, so, it is said by Krafft and 
others, must have been the discourses which they respectively fol- 
lowed. But we have already seen that Matthew is not narrating 
events in chronological order, and that the healing of the leper took 
place before the Sermon on the mount. We are not, therefore, 
obliged to suppose the discourses distinct upon this ground. 

3d. Difference of audience. Matthew (iv. 25) describes the mul- 
titudes present as from Galilee, Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judza, and 
from beyond Jordan; Luke (vi. 17), as from all Judea, Jerusalem, 
and the sea-coast of Tyre and Sidon. From this partial difference of 
names Krafft (83) infers that those who heard the discourse reported 
by Matthew were mostly Jews, with perhaps a few Syrians; but that 
those who heard the discourse reported by Luke were mostly from 
the eastern side of Galilee, and the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. But 
this inference is not warranted. In this enumeration neither of the 
Evangelists designs to discriminate between Jewish and heathen 
lands. This appears from Mark (iii. 7, 8), who mentions Galilee, 
Judxa, Jerusalem, Idumia, beyond Jordan, and about Tyre and 


1 So Tholuck, Sermon on the Mount, 53, ‘“‘ a level place, not a plain.** Weisicker: 
ein ebenes Feld. Contra, McClel., 446. 

2 See Ebrard, 350; Stier, i. 327; Lichtenstein, 247. Alford, after Meyer, finds the 
two Evangelists in contradiction. 


272 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD, [Part IV. 


Sidon. If heathen were present, according to Luke, from Tyre and 
Sidon, so might they be also, according to Matthew, from Decapolis. 
The Evangelists plainly all intend to say, that the crowds who were 
present came from every part of the land, and any difference in the 
enumeration of the regions whence they came is unimportant. On 
the other hand, the very particularity of the mention of so many 
provinces by each, sufficiently shows that all point to one and the 
same period. As has been said, some affirm that the discourse in 
Matthew was spoken to the disciples, that in Luke to the multitude; 
and they understand Matthew’s statement, ‘‘ Seeing the multitudes 
He went up into a mountain,” to mean, that He ascended up that 
He might avoid them, and address the disciples alone. But that He 
addressed the multitudes, is plain from the statement (vii. 28) that 
‘‘the multitudes were astonished at His teaching.” 

The supposition that the Lord first addressed the apostles and dis- 
ciples, which address Matthew gives, and then the multitudes, 
which address Luke gives, was advocated by Augustine, and has 
been the ruling one in the Latin Church. (See Maldonatus, in loco.) 
It has been also adopted by most of the Lutheran harmonists, though 
Calvin calls this view light and frivolous. That there is something 
esoteric in the former and exoteric in the latter, may be admitted; 
but this is owing, not to the different audiences to whom the dis- 
courses were spoken, but to the different classes of readers for which 
the two Gospels were designed. 

4th. Difference of contents. ‘‘Of 107 verses in Matthew, Luke 
contains only 30; his four beatitudes are balanced by as many woes; 
and in his text parts of the sermon are introduced by sayings which 
do not precede them in Matthew, but which naturally connect with 
them.”* But these differences are few when compared with the re- 
semblances. The beginning and ending of both are the same; there 
is a general similarity in the order, and often identity in the expres- 
sions. Often in the Evangelists, when their reports are in substance 
the same, there are many variations.” That the two discourses should 
have so much in common if they were distinct, spoken at different 
times and to different audiences, is most improbable. That many of 
the shorter proverbial expressions might be used at various times is 
natural, but not that such similarity should prevail throughout. *® 


1 Alford on Matt. v.1. See also Greswell, ii. 429; Krafft, 83. 

2 Compare the Lord’s Prayer as given Matt. vi. 9-13 and Luke xi. 2-4; and His 
discourse concerning the Pharisees, Matt. xxiii. and Luke xx. 46. 

3 Neander’s explanation, 224, that the original document of Matthew being of 
Hebrew origin, ‘‘ passed through the hands of the Greek editor, who has inserted other 
expressions of Christ allied to those in the organic connection of the discourse, but 
spoken on other occasions,” is an arbitrary assumption. 


ie 


Part IV.] THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 273 


Without entering into the vexed question of inspiration, its 
nature and degrees, we may say that each Evangelist, writing 
under the direction of the Holy Spirit, made such selection of 
the Lord’s words, as well as of the events in His history, and so 
arranged them, as best to meet the wants of those for whom he 
wrote. That Luke should omit those portions of the discourse 
having special reference to the Jewish sects and to the Mosaic 
laws, was in accordance with the general scope of his Gospel as 
designed for Gentile Christians; while Matthew, on the other 
hand, writing for Jewish Christians, would retain them. 
(Wordsworth, on Luke vi.17.) To this Alford and others object 
that in some cases Luke is fuller than Matthew (compare Matt. 
vii. 1, 2, and Luke vi. 37, 38). But, as has been said, Mat- 
thew may not give the words of the Lord im all their fullness; 
and it is not at all inconsistent with the fact of an epitome that 
certain thoughts should be more fully expanded than in the 
original, when this original is itself but an epitome. 

There is still another argument against the identity of these 
two discourses, based upon the fact that Matthew does not relate 
his own call (ix. 9) till he had recorded the sermon. But it is 
so abundantly established that Matthew does not follow chron- 
ological order, that this is of no importance. 

We conclude, then, that Matthew gives this discourse sub- 
stantially, if not literally, as it was spoken; and that Luke gives 
the same, but modified to meet the wants of that class of readers 
for whom he especially wrote.’ 

It is notin our province to interpret this discourse, but it 
gives some historical data which should be noted. Ist. His denial 
that He came to destroy the law and the prophets (Matt. v. 17). 
Charges of this kind were, undoubtedly, often made against Him. 
2d. His intimation that all who should receive Him, must suffer 
reproach and persecution (v. 11), “‘ Blessed are ye when men shall 
reproach you, and persecute you. and say all manner of evil 
against you falsely, for my sake.” 3d. The authority with 
which He speaks, as shown in the frequent recurrence of the 
words, “But I say unto you”; and in His declaration (vii. 22), 


1 In this view of the matter, most agree; Rob., Tholuck, Alex., Fried., Ellicott 
Eders. 
12* 


274 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


“Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, . . . and 
then will I profess unto them, I never knew you, depart from 
me, ye that work iniquity.” His language throughout is not 
that of a rabbi, or a prophet, but of a Law-giver and a King. 


Mipsummer, 781. A. D. 28. 


After the sermon is ended Jesus returns to Capernaum, 
still followed by the multitudes. Immediately after His Marv. viii. 5-13. 
return, He heals the centurion’s servant. The crowds con- LukE yii. 1-10, 
tinuing to follow Him so that He has no time even to eat, Mark iii. 20, 21. 
His friends become alarmed at His incessant labors, and 
thinking Him beside Himself, attempt to restrain Him. 

It is said by Luke (vii. 1), “ Now when He had ended all 
His sayings in the audience of the people, He entered into 
Capernaum.” (R. V., “After He had ended.”) Mark, after 
mentioning the choice of the Twelve, adds: “And they went 
into a house,” or more literally, «‘went home” — el¢ olxkov — 
that is, to His house in Capernaum. (See ii. 1.) It is probable 
that the healing of the centurion’s servant was on the day of His 
return (Matt. viii. 5). The mention of this centurion seems to 
be the ground of the general belief that a Roman garrison was 
stationed here, but it is more probable that the centurion was 
under Herod.' 

The difference between Matthew and Luke, that according 
to the former, the centurion came unto the Lord in person, but 
according to the latter, he made his request by the elders, is 
unimportant. That the synagogue here spoken of as built by the 
centurion, is the same as that the ruins of which are now to be 
seen at Tell Hum, is not improbable. It is said by Tristram 
(B. P. 279): “If this be Capernaum, then this must, beyond 
doubt, be the synagogue built by the Roman centurion.” (So 
Eders., i. 546, and Col. Wilson; but it is objected by others that its 
architecture shows it to be of later date.) That the elders should 
come to make the request is wholly in accordance with oriental 
usage (Thomson, i. 313), and that they were willing to make 
it shows that at this time no general hostility had yet devel- 
oped itself against the Lord in Capernaum. 


1 So Keil, Meyer, Godet. As to Roman garrisons in Jewish cities, see Schiirer, I. ii 
Gl. 


Part iV.] JESUS RETURNS TO CAPERNAUM. 275 


Returning to Capernaum, the Lord found no rest. So earnest 
were the people to see and hear Him, and to bring to Him their 
sick, that He found no time even to eat (Mark iii. 20). This 
intense activity alarmed His friends for His sanity (verse 21, 
“He is beside Himself”) and “they went out to lay hold on 
Him.” Mark mentions a little later (verse 31) a visit of 
His mother and brethren, apparently to restrain Him from 
such excessive labors. Are these two events the same? Are 
“ His friends ” in verse 21, the same as ‘‘ His mother and His 
brethren” in verse 31? This point we will briefly consider. 


We must first ask how the expression, of rap’ avroi, literally ‘‘ those 
from Him,” is to be understood? It is said that the only allowable 
translation is that of ‘‘relatives”’ or ‘‘ kinsmen,”’ and that, therefore, 
these here mentioned must have been His mother and brethren. But 
in the R. V., the translation ‘‘ His friends” of the A. V. is retained. 
The question is, whether kinship is meant, or some relation of dis- 
cipleship or friendship. It is said by Lichtenstein that they were 
disciples in the larger sense, not of the Twelve; by Ebrard, that 
they were the people of the house where He was; by Keil, that they 
were not distinctively His disciples, but some in Capernaum friendly 
to Him, who, knowing how great the pressure upon Him, came out 
of their houses to interfere. 

If we distinguish His friends from His relatives — His mother and 
brethren — we find two events, and we must enquire as to the order 
of their occurrence. Mark alone makes mention of His friends, but 
all the Synoptists mention the visit of His relatives. In Matthew, 
this stands in immediate relation to the request of the Pharisees for a 
sign (xii. 38-46), and after He had been accused by them of being in 
alliance with Beelzebub (verse 24). Mark (iii. 31) also brings it into 
immediate connection with this accusation (verse 22). Luke (viii. 19) 
puts it after the teaching in parables, but without any special indica- 
tion as to the time. It seems, therefore, most probable that the 
visit of His relatives must be put somewhat later than the visit of His 
friends, and when the enmity of the Pharisees was more developed. 
As to the chronological place of the first interference, we are to note 
that Mark does not say that it was immediately after the descent from 
the mount. Inthe R. V. (verse 19) it reads, ‘‘ And He cometh into 
a house,” or in the margin, ‘‘cometh home,” beginning here a new 
paragraph. This was the original division when the Bible was 


1 So T. G. Lex. sub voce, mapa, Meyer, Alex., Stier, Alford, Norton; in the Vulgate 
it is rendered, et cum audissent sui ; by De Wette and Weisicker, die Seinigen. 


276 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. (Part IV. 


divided into verses, and is retained by many modern editors and trans- 
lators; it is also the division in the Vulgate. It is, therefore, possible, 
that this attempt of His friends was some days or even weeks after 
the Sermon on the Mount. But it may very well have been immedi- 
ately after this, and the expression, ‘‘ The multitude cometh together 
again,” seems to indicate that after a temporary dispersion, such as 
was natural in coming from the mount, they had reassembled in the 
city, and doubtless before His own dwelling.' 

How are we to understand the words of His friends, ‘‘ He is be- 
side Himself? ’’ Did they really question His sanity? The expression, 
éééorn, does not necessarily mean this. (See Mark ii. 12; T. G. Lex., 
Eders, i. 548.) It is most probable that they thought Him over- 

‘excited, and attempting labors beyond His strength, and therefore 
needing to be restrained. But if it were their belief that He was 
really insane, it would simply show how incapable they were of 
understanding what zeal for God possessed Him, and what strength 
He received from His Father for His work. 

If, however, on the other hand, we identify, as many or perhaps 
most do, His friends with His mother and brethren, and find one 
event only, this is not, as we have seen, necessarily to be put imme- 
diately after the Sermon on the Mount. Some put it after the heal- 
ing of the demoniac (Matt. xii. 22; so Light., Fried., Gardiner, 
Eders.), when the charge of the Pharisees that He cast out devils by 
the aid of Beelzebub, must have greatly agitated His relatives. 

While, then, we cannot positively assert that the two events are 
not to be identified, yet the probability is, that they are distinct. If 
distinct, the first is to be put at or soon after the descent from the 
mount; and the second, after the healing of the dumb and blind demo- 
niacs. If identified, the latter date is the more probable.? The place 
from which His relatives came will be later considered. 


Mipsummer, 781. A.D. 28. 


Soon after the healing of the centurion’s servant He Luxe vii. 11-17. 

goes to Nain, accompanied by the disciples and many 

people. He there restores to life the son of a widow as 

they were bearing him to the grave. While continuing Mart. xi. 1-19. 
His ministry in that part of Galilee, John the Baptist, LUKE vii. 18-35. 
who hears of His works, sends from his prison a message 

to Him by two of his disciples. Jesus answers their 

question, and addresses the multitude respecting John. 


1 In Tisch., the article is omitted before multitude, in W. and H. it is pracketed 
If we omit it, it reads ‘‘ a multitude,”’ not identifying it with that from the mount. 

2 The two are distinguished by Bengel, Rob., Farrar, Lex., Fuller, Keil, Eders,; 
and identified by Light., Ellicott, Gardiner, Quandt, Meyer, 


Part 1V.] JESUS AT NAIN. 277 


The order of events here will depend upon the reading, 
Luke vii. 11, whether év 77 é&7]¢, or év tO éf7c, “ the day after,” 
or “afterward.”’ (In R. V. “It came to pass afterwards,” but 
see margin. We accept the R. V.) But how long He now re- 
mained at Capernaum we are not told. Some interval must 
have elapsed before His relatives came from Nazareth —if this 
was their residence—to Capernaum. His departure to Nain 
was the beginning of His second circuit. 

The Lord gave Himself no rest, but entered immediately 
upon new labors. From this time the Twelve were constantly 
with Him till sent forth upon their mission. Beside them many 
of the other disciples now accompanied Him, as well as much 
people. 

Nain lies on the northwest declivity of the hill of Little 
Hermon, commanding an extensive view over the plain of 
Esdraelon and the northern hills. It is now an insignificant 
village, with no remains of any importance. “No convent, no 
tradition marks the spot. But under these circumstances, the 
name is sufficient to guarantee its authenticity.”* Tristram 
(B. P., 241) says of it: “ Nain must have been a city; the 
ruined heaps and traces of walls prove that it was of consider- 
able extent, and a walled town, and therefore with gates, accord- 
ing to the Gospel narrative.” 

As the Jews usually buried the dead upon the same day they 
died and before sundown,’ it has been questioned how the Lord 
could have reached Nain from Capernaum so early in the day as 
to meet the funeral procession. But it is uncertain whether He 
left Capernaum that morning. He may have been at some point 
much nearer to Nain, and if not, as the distance is only about 
twenty-five miles, and probably less, it might be walked inseven 
or eight hours. As the orientals walk rapidly, and commence 
their journeys early in the morning, He might have reached 
Nain by noon, or a little after.’ 

The restoration to life of the widow’s son was the first work of 
this kind the Lord had wrought, and naturally produced a most 


1 For the first, Tischendorf, Robinson, Wieseler, Alford, Keil; contra, Meyer, 
Stier, W. and H. 

2 Stanley, 349. 3 Winer, ii. 16, note 1. 

4 For details of this miracle, see Edersheim, i. 553. 


278 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part LV. 


powerful impression on all who heard of it. All saw in it 
the mighty hand of God, who alone could bring the dead to life. 
The Evangelist mentions (Luke vii. 16) that ‘there came a fear 
on all, and they glorified God, saying, that a great prophet is 
risen up among us; and that God hath visited His people.” 
Keil understands this as expressing the popular feeling that 
Jesus was not the Messiah, but His forerunner. Nosuch miracle 
had been wrought since the days of Elisha; the fame of it 
“went forth through all Juda, and throughout all the region 
round about,” and thus coming to the ears of some of John’s 
disciples, was told by them to their master. Luke says (vii. 
18), “And the disciples of John showed him of all these things.” 
This may mean that they told him of all that Jesus had recently 
dene, His works of healing, the choice of the Twelve, the Ser- 
mon on the Mount, as well as of this work at Nain ; and also 
of His great popularity, and of the crowds that continually fol- 
lowed Him. If we assume that the place of John’s imprison- 
ment was Machaerus,’ a fortress in the southern part of Perwa, 
just on the confines of Arabia, some days at least must have 
elapsed between this miracle and the coming of John’s messen- 
gers.?, Perhaps our Lord continued during this interval at Nain, 
teaching all who had been so impressed by His mighty work 
that they had ears to hear ; or He may have visited the adjacent 
cities and villages; or He may, after a brief circuit, have re- 
turned to Capernaum, and hither, as the place of His residence, 
John’s disciples have come. 

Some place this miracle after the raising of the daughter of 
Jairus, chiefly because the former is a greater exhibition of the 
power of Christ. Thus Trench* says of the three miracles of 
raising the dead, that “they are not exactly the same miracle 
repeated three times over, but may be contemplated as an ever- 
ascending scale of difficulty, each a greater outcoming of the 
power of Christ than the preceding.” But this is more plausible 
than sound. If there be such ‘‘an ever-ascending scale of dif- 
ficulty,” we should find the Lord’s first works of healing less 
mighty than the later ; but this is not the case. If we compare 


1 Josephus, War, vii. 6. 1-3. 2 See Greswell, ii. 327. 
8 Mir., 152 


Part 1V.] MESSAGE OF THE BAPTIST TO JESUS. 279 


the two miracles of feeding the multitude, the first is the more 
stupendous. The impression which the raising of the widow’s son 
made on all, seems plainly to show that it was the first of its 
kind (Luke vii. 16, 17). 

Perhaps the message of the Baptist may stand in close con- 
nection with the great miracle at Nain. It is not within our 
scope to ask what motives may have controlled him, but such 
a miracle must have convinced him, had he before had any 
doubts, that Jesus was divinely sent, and that the mighty power 
of God was indeed with Him. The question then, “ Art thou 
He that should come, or look we for another?” may be an in- 
timation that Jesus should now put forth in direct act that 
power of which He had just shown Himself to be possessed ; a 
question of impatience rather than of doubt. 

The answer of the Lord to the messengers meets this state of 
mind. He refers to His daily works as being truly Messianic, 
and such as befitted Him to perform. Not acts of judgment 
but of mercy belong to His office. His work is now to heal 
the sick, to preach the Gospel to the poor, to raise the dead. 
He adds, as a caution to John, “Blessed is he whosoever shall 
not be offended in me.” ‘Blessed is he who shall under- 
stand the work I now do, and not stumble at it.” 

This question of John, which some, as Jones, suppose to 
have arisen from no doubt on John’s part, but to have been sug- 
gested by the Holy Spirit for the confirmation of the faith of 
others, gives Jesus an opportunity to bear His direct witness to 
him as a prophet, and more, as the herald of the Messiah (Matt. 
xi. 9, 10). He declares also to the people, that if they will 
receive him, he is the Elias that was for to come; and re- 
proaches them that they would not receive John or Himself in 
-either of their different modes of working or teaching (Matt. xi. 
16-19 ; Luke vii. 31-35). His testimony to John was well re- 
ceived by the people and the publicans, all those who had been 
baptized by him; but not by the Pharisees and lawyers, who 
had rejected his baptism (Luke vii. 29, 30). 

This testimony of Jesus to John as the herald of the Messiah, 
was a plain assertion, though an indirect one, of His own 
Messianic character. But John was now in prison. How was 


280 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


this compatible with his being Elias? How could he prepare 
the Lord’s way? Did not this very fact of his imprisonment 
conclusively disprove all his claims to be the forerunner of the 
Messiah? This tacit objection Jesus meets by showing that it 
depended on them, whether or no John was the Elias. If they 
received him, if they hearkened to his words, and permitted him 
to do his work, then he would be to them that prophet, and fulfill 
all that was said of Elias. But they had not so received him; 
they had said of him that he had a devil ; and now he was shut 
up in prison ; and thus the Jews were made clearly to under- 
stand the connection between John’s ministry and that of Jesus, 
and how the rejection of the former involved that of the latter. 

Immediately upon these words concerning John, follows in 
Matthew (xi. 20-24) an apostrophe to the cities of Bethsaida, Cho- 
razin, and Capernaum. It is given by Luke later, and in con- 
nection with the mission of the seventy disciples (Luke x. 13-16). 
The point is of some importance as bearing on the question, 
how long the Lord’s work in Galilee had now continued. 

It is said by Matthew : “Then began He to upbraid the cities 
wherein most of His mighty works were done, because they re- 
pented not.” This would indicate that a considerable time had 
elapsed since His ministry began in Galilee, and that it was now 
drawing to aclose. In Matthew’s arrangement it is put after 
the Twelve were sent out, and John’s messengers had come to 
Him (xi. 1-2). Is “then”—vzére—here a mark of time? 
There seems no good reason why it is not to be so taken here, 
for the woes on the cities that follow are in keeping with His 


words respecting John and Himself (xi. 18, 19). But the posi- ~ 


tion of these woes in Luke at the time of sending out the 
Seventy, and at the end of His Galilean ministry, is rather to be 
preferred. And some think that the Lord repeated them. It 
is suggested by Alexander that a part spoken to the Seventy is 


given by Matthew ‘on account of its affinity with what pre-— 


cedes.” As he does not mention the sending of the Seventy, 
there seems to be no valid objection to this view of a repetition.’ 


1 Opinions are much divided. Of those who think them spoken once, and follow- 
ing Matthew, are Caspari, Keil ; following Luke, Bleek, Godet, Friedlieb, Gardiner, Krafft, 
Edersheim, and many. Of those who think them spoken twice, Lightfoot, Robinson, 
Meyer, Stroud; Farrar, not twice spoken, but placed too early by Matthew. 


Part IV.] ANOINTING AT THE HOUSE OF SIMON. 28% 


Whether the journey (Luke viii. 1-3) made in company 
with “the Twelve and certain women,” was a continuation of 
the circuit from Nain, is not certain, though most probable. 
Edersheim (i. 573) supposes Him to have returned to Capernaum 
after the miracle at Nain, and on this return journey to have 
healed the two blind men and the demonized dumb mentioned 
by Matthew (ix. 27-31). If, however, the anointing was at 
Capernaum, this may refer to a new circuit. The remark of 
Ellicott (184) that “this circuit could not have lasted much 
above a day or two after the miracle at Nain,” is plainly at 
variance with the Evangelist’s language (vill. 1), that “He went 
throughout every city and village preaching,” which upon its 
face implies a circuit of considerable duration.* This circuit is 
_ distinguished from His former ones by the attendance of the 
women, whose names are mentioned: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, 
wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others. 
Nothing is historically known of any of these persons more than 
is here related. Their attendance on the Lord may perhaps be 
regarded as marking an onward step in His ministry. 
Whether from this time they generally accompanied Him in 
His journeys is not stated, but is not improbable. (See Luke 
XXlil. 55; compare Matt. xx. 17, 20.) 


Autumn, 781. A.D. 28. 


Jesus dines with a Pharisee named Simon, and while at LUKE vii. 36-50. 
the table is anointed by a woman who is a sinner. In re- 
ply to Simon’s complaint He relates the parable of the two 
debtors. He continues His circuit in Galilee with the Lu&E viii. 1-3. 
Twelve, and also accompanied by certain women. 


It is much disputed whether one, two, or three anointings of 
the Lord are mentioned by the Evangelists, and whether these 
were by one or two women, and when, and where they took 
place. A brief discussion of these points is therefore necessary. 


We first ask how many times was the Lord anointed? (Matt. 
xxv. 6; Mark xiv. 3; Luke vii. 36; John xii. 2.) A few of the early 
fathers said three times; Matthew and Mark relating one instance, 


1 Tt is impossible, without great violence to language, to compress so much of 
the Lord’s work into the brief interval between Purim and the Passover following, as 
Ellicott is compelled to do by assuming that the feast (John y. 1) is Purim. 


282 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV 


John another, and Luke a third. But more said, He was twice 
anointed, Matthew and Mark and John relating one instance, and 
Luke a second. On the other hand, some said, He was anointed 
only once, all the Evangelists relating the same. (For the early 
opinions, see Maldonatus, in locis; Nebe, Leidensgeschichte, 120.) 
And down to the present time each of these opinions has its ad- 
vocates. 

Assuming here, what is generally admitted but which will be 
examined when the events of Passion week are considered, that 
Matthew and Mark and John all refer to the same anointing, we shall 
now consider only the point whether this is the one mentioned by 
Luke. 

The ground upon which one anointing only has been affirmed is 
in general the similarity of the narratives as seen in three particulars: 
first, the identity of the names of the givers of the feasts, being both 
Simon; second, the very unusual character of the act, and the con- 
sequent improbability that it would be repeated; third, the offense 
taken in both cases by persons present. 

As to the first, the identity of names, this has little force. The 
name Simon was one of the most common among the Jews, and in the 
New Testament some eight persons of this name are mentioned. Be- 
sides, the two Simons are here distinguished; in Luke ‘‘ Simon the 
Pharisee,” in Matthew and Mark ‘‘Simon the leper.” We cannot 
then, on this ground, affirm that they are one and the same person. 

As to the second, that such an act with its attendant circumstances 
could scarcely have been repeated, we know that the anointing of 
the head was common, and not uncommon the anointing of ‘the feet. 
(Hamburg., i. 887.) The wiping of His feet with the hairs of the head 
was most remarkable, but the same feeling of humility, reverence, 
and love that called it forth from one person, might also from another. 
Luthardt suggests that Mary of Bethany (John xii. 3) may have 
heard what the woman, ‘‘a sinner,” did to the Lord (Luke vii. 38), 
and she would not do less. 

As to the third, that some of those present should on both oc- 
casions take offense, it is quite what we might expect from the 
peculiar character of the act. But the persons are not the same, nor 
the ground of the offense. Some of the disciples, represented by 


Judas Iscariot, blamed Mary for her waste; Simon the Pharisee found. 


fault that the Lord, if a prophet, should have received such an anoint- 
ing from a woman, a sinner. 

If we now note the dissimilarities, we find them to be many and 
important. As against the identity of the two Simons, besides their 
differing designations, ‘‘ Pharisee” and “leper,” we must take into 


“4 


Pare TV || JESUS ANOINTED IN GALILBE. 283 


account the differences of time and place. Luke puts this anointing in 
the midst of the Lord’s Galilean ministry, and somewhere in Galilee; 
the other Evangelists, some days only before His death, and at Bethany 
near Jerusalem. It may be said, as by Grotius, that Luke often dis- 
regards time and place, but it is scarcely credible that he should take 
' this event so wholly out of its actual connections. Norcan the language 
of Simon the Pharisee be put into the mouth of Simon the leper; nor 
can the words of the Lord to the two women have been spoken to one 
and thesame person. To the sinner He said, ‘‘ Thysins are forgiven”; 
of Mary, ‘‘She did it for my burial” . . . (‘‘to prepare me for 
my burial,” R. Y.). And it is most unlikely that after the Pharisees 
had resolved to put the Lord to death, a Pharisee would have 
received Him into his house, and honored Him with a feast.! 

But the more general belief has been from the first that there were 
two anointings.? If we accept two anointings, one in Galilee and 
one in Bethany, were there two women anointing, or one? If one, 
since Mary of Bethany is expressly named (John xii. 3), the ‘‘the 
sinner” of Luke, must be identified with her. This identification 
was held by some, perhaps most, of the Latin fathers. Thus 
Augustine says: eandem Mariam bis hoc fecisse. On the other side, 
many held that there were two women, Mary of B. and ‘‘the sinner” 
being distinct persons.* 

Before we examine the grounds on which the belief rests that 
there was but one woman, and she Mary of B., let us examine the 
statement in Luke (vii. 37). And first, the right reading. In the 
received text it reads yuvy év r7 rode nTis Y duaprwrés, and is translated 
‘Ca woman in the city, which was a sinner” ; in W. and H., yuri 
ams nv év Ty oder duaprwdés, translated in the R. V., ‘‘a woman which 
was in the city, a sinner.” Accepting the last as the true reading, the 
natural construction is, that she was a woman residing in the city 
where Jesus then was; and her character is marked by the word 
“sinner,” which, we can scarce doubt, indicates here a woman of un- 
chaste life. This has been the very general belief from earliest times. 
Tt is said by Maldonatus : ‘‘ Constans omnium veterum auctorum opinio 
est fuisse meretricem”’; and this is generally accepted by recent com- 
mentators. 

If, then, the Lord was anointed twice by the same woman, the 
sinner of Luke must have been Mary the sister of Martha and 


1 Among those in recent times who have maintained only one anointing are Light- 
foot, Grotius, Ewald, Bleek, Hengstenberg. 

2 So of the fathers, Augustine, Chrysostom. Of the moderns, Meyer, Rob., Elli 
cott, Caspari, Ebrard, Godet, Edersheim, Friedlieb, Farrar, Gardiner. 

8 So Origen, Jerome, Chrysostom, and others. See Friedlieb, 438. 


284 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV, 


Lazarus. (John xi. 2; xii. 3.) And this is the belief of the Latin 
church, at least since Gregory (604 A. D.), and is affirmed by most of 
its commentators and harmonists. (So Maldonatus and a Lapide, 
but contra, Friedlieb.) 

But on what grounds are we to identify the two? There is noth- 


ing in the narrative that points to it. If there were two anointings, © 


one in Bethany and one in Galilee, how do we explain the presence 
of Mary of B. at both? If leading an impure life in Galilee, when 
and why did she transfer her residence to Bethany? The explanation 
usually given supposes that there was but one Simon, a leper whom 


the Lord had healed, that he lived at Bethany, that Martha, Mary, 


and Lazarus lived at Magdala in Galilee, that Simon married 
Martha, that Mary was unchaste, but lived with her sister, that she 
first met the Lord at Bethany at the house of her brother-in-law, and 
there anointed Him, and afterward anointed Him again before His 
passion. (So in substance the Latins; Hengstenberg gives a some- 
what different version.) For all this there is no historical basis. 
All depends upon a supposed relationship of Simon to the family of 
Martha and Mary, either of marriage or of blood. The variations of 
this tradition, as that this Simon lived first in Galilee, that there Mary 
his relative had free entrance to his house, and there anointed 
the Lord, that he afterwards settled in Bethany, and that she repeated 
the anointing there, are all equally unsupported. 

To the identification of Mary of Bethany with the sinful woman, 
it may be replied, (a) that the woman mentioned by Luke is not 
called Mary, and therefore the woman mentioned by John is sufficiently 
distinguished from her by the name, while the fact of the anointing 
is used by him to distinguish this Mary from others of the same 
name; and (2) that the objection is of weight only in case the anoint- 
ing mentioned by Luke as occurring in Galilee is the same with the 
one mentioned by John as occurring in Jerusalem, an identification 
on other grounds improbable. 

We do not, then, find any ground to identify the sinful woman of 
Galilee with Mary of Bethany. Of the former we know absolutely 
nothing, neither her name, nor her family or friends, nor even her city. 
But Mary never appears anywhere else but in Bethany, her relatives are 
always mentioned; and our Christian feeling is wounded when we 
are asked to believe that one, so highly commended by the Lord, 
had led a notoriously wicked life. It is true, she is said by the 
advocates of this identity to have repented, tune peccatriz fuerat, nunc 
sancta; but the shame of her earlier life must have remained in the 
memories of all. 

We conclude, then, that the woman a sinner and Mary of B. were 





Part 1V.] MARY M. NOT THE SINFUL WOMAN. 285 


distinct persons; the former anointed the Lord in Galilee during His 
ministry there, the latter in Bethany when His ministry had come to 
its close. 

But another question meets us: Can the sinful woman of Galilee 
be identified with Mary Magdalene? It has been the general opinion 
of the Latin Church, at least since Gregory I., that Mary of B. and the 
sinful woman and Mary M. are all one and the same; we must, there- 
fore, also ask what we know of Mary M. It is generally accepted 
that she was so called from Magdala, a town on the sea of Galilee.’ 
She is mentioned by Luke (viii. 2) as one of the women whom the 
Lord had ‘‘healed of evil spirits and infirmities; Mary called Magda- 
lene, out of whom went seven devils.” Only once again is she spoken 
of in this way (Mark xvi. 9); in all other cases, fourteen in number, 
she is called Mary Magdalene, or simply Mary, and all later mention 
of her is in connection with the crucifixion and resurrection. 

This is all we can be said to know of Mary M., but from the fact 
that she “ ministered to the Lord of her substance,” the inference has 
been drawn that she had some wealth; and from the position of her 
name before those of Joanna and Susanna (Luke viii. 3), and also 
before those who were with her at the cross (Matt. xxvii. 56, and 
elsewhere), we may infer that she was a woman of rank. (See Lard- 
ner, x. 238.) But whether these inferences be or be not correct, she 
was certainly very prominent among the disciples. That she was 
ever an immoral woman, is not said, nor is it implied in the fact that 
she had been under the power of evil spirits. (See Trench, Miracles, 
131.) A life of unchastity is precluded by the place she held in the 
ranks of those faithful and honorable women who followed the Lord. 

It is hard to see why Mary M., of all the women mentioned as 
believers, should have been selected to stand as the unknown sinner. 
How strong and general this belief had become, is seen in the 
heading of the chapter (Luke vii.) inthe A. V. of the English Bible: 
“‘Our Lord showeth by occasion of Mary M. how He is a friend to 
sinners;” and it is now acase of inseparable association. But the 
early church was by no means unanimous in this identity; it was not 
for some centuries that it was generally accepted, and there have 
been many dissentients. The Greek Church never identified the 
three. In the Apostolic Constitutions (iii. 6), Mary of B. is distin- 
guished from Mary M.: ‘‘ There were with us Mary Magdalene, and 
Mary and Martha, the sisters of Lazarus,” and the two have different 
days of commemoration. In the Roman Church, the feast of Mary 


1 Lightfoot attempts to identify Magdala with Bethany, but on no sufficient ground. 
See Reland, 883. 


286 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


M. is on the 22d of July, and she is identified with Mary of B. and 
with the sinful woman. The Church of England dropped this com- 
memoration in 1552. (For a full account of the honors paid 
Mary M., see Binterim, Denk, v. 395; in favor of the identity of 
Mary Magdalene with this sinner, see Sepp, iii. 243; Oosterzee in loco; 
contra, Meyer, Winer. For a general discussion of the point, see 
Herzog’s Encyc., vol. ix. 102.) 

As there is much confusion arising from the great diversity of 
opinions respecting the number of the women, and the number of 
the anointings, and their place and time, a brief summary may be 
useful. 

I. Number of women anointing. First. Three women: 1. 
The unknown sinner; 2. Mary of B.; 3. Mary M.; Second. Two 
women: 1. Mary of B.; 2. Mary M. One of these must be the same 
as the unknown sinner; (a) Mary of B. and the sinner the same; (0) 
Mary M. and the sinner the same. Third. One woman only; the 
sinful woman, Mary of B., and Mary M., all one and the same person. 

Il. Number of anointings. First. Three anointings, one in 
Luke, one in Matthew and Mark, and onein John. Second. Two 
anointings, one in Luke; one in Matthew, Mark, and John. Third. 
One anointing. All the Evangelists describe the same. 

III. Place and time: if three anointings, one in Galilee during 
the second year, two in Bethany six days and two days respectively 
before the crucifixion; if two anointings, either (@) one in Galilee dur- 
ing the second year, the other in Bethany during Passion Week, or 
(6) both in Bethany, one six days, the other two days before the cru- 
cifixion; if one anointing, this in Bethany during Passion Week. 


Autumn, 781. A. D. 28. 


Returning to Capernaum, the Lord heals one possessed MArT?. xii. 22-45, 
with a devil, blind and dumb. The Pharisees hereupon MARK iii. 22-30. 
charge Him with casting out devils by the help of Beelze- 
bub, and some, tempting Him, ask a sign from Heaven. 

He replies to their charge, and while speaking it is an- 

nounced to Him that His mother and brethren stand with- Mart, xii. 46-50. 
out, desiring to see Him. He points to His disciples, and LUKE viii. 19-21. 
says, Behold my mother and my brethren. Mark iii. 31-35. 


There is not a little difficulty in the arrangement of these 
events. There are two cases of healing of dumb possessed per- 
sons related by Matthew, first in ix. 32, second in xii. 22. 
They have much in common, and at both did the Pharisees 


Part IV.] HEALING THE BLIND AND DUMB POSSESSED. 287 


make the charge that Jesus cast out devils through the prince 
of the devils. There is, however, this important difference, that 
in the former the possessed was dumb only, in the latter, both 
dumb and blind. 

It has been said by some, as DeWette, that these are the 
same; but almost all make them distinct. (See Meyer on 
Matt. xii. 22.) Does Matthew relate them in the order of their 
occurrence? This is not certain. He collects in chapters viii. 
and ix. a number of miracles, but their chronological relations 
he does not define, and to know when they occurred we must 
examine the attendant circumstances. The healing of this 
dumb man is put as following immediately after the healing 
of the blind men (ix. 27), and this immediately after the raising 
to life of the daughter of Jairus (verse 23 ff.). But in the latter 
case the connecting links are too vague to demand an immediate 
sequence, and perhaps also in the first. (See Trench, Mir., 160.) 
The healing of the blind and dumb possessed man is mentioned 
without any clear indication of the time. 

In both these cases the charge was made that the Lord cast 
out devils by the aid of Beelzebub. To this charge in ix. 34, 
He made no reply, so far as is reported ; but in xii. 25 He replied, 
showing both its folly and its wickedness. 

In Luke xi. 14 we find an instance of the healing of a dumb 
possessed man followed by alike charge, and the Lord’sreply. Is 
it to be identified with either of those mentioned by Matthew ? 
That he is spoken of only as dumb and not also blind, would 
seem to identify him with the man in Matthew ix. 32; but the 
Lord’s reply in Luke is so like that in Matt. xii. 25 that we seem 
almost compelled to identify them. We have also in Mark ii. 
22 the same charge, and a reply much briefer, but in substan- 
tially the same words. 

The arrangement of harmonists as to number of healings 
and times of occurrence is various. 

I. Those who find three cases of healing : 

Lightfoot — 1st, Matt. xii.; 2d, Matt. ix.; 3d, Luke xi. 

Bengel, Greswell — 1st, Matt. ix.; 2d, Matt. xii.; 3d, Luke xi 

II. Those who find two cases : 

Robinson, Gardiner, Friedlieb — 1st, Matt. xii., Luke xi. ; 
2d, Matt. ix. 


288 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


Edersheim — 1st, Matthew ix. ; 2d, Matthew xii.; Luke 
a 

It is very difficult to choose among these several arrange- 
ments. It is remarked by Greswell that cases of dispossession 
were among the earliest and commonest of the Saviour’s mira- 
cles; it is not, therefore, to be thought strange that His replies 
upon these different occasions should be substantially the same. 
And we are also to remember that the Evangelist having once 
given His reply, would not repeat it unless some new elements 
were woven into it. It is then not at all improbable that 
Matthew, who simply mentions the charge in ix. 34, should, in 
xii. 25, have brought together after his manner, the sub- 
stance of all the Lord had said in His replies. The same may 
be true of the report in Luke. In both, the demand of His 
enemies for a sign is mentioned in immediate connection with 
their charge of demoniac help, and this points strongly to their 
identity. But while there is much to be said in favor of this, 
yet the probability is that Matthew and Luke refer to different 
cases of healing and give different discourses, that in Luke being 
during the last journey to Jerusalem. (See Greswell, ii. 581 ff.) 

Two points still remain. Is the discourse in Mark iii. 23 ff. 
the same as in Matthew xii. 25? This is most probable, Mark 
omitting the miracle which occasioned the charge against the 
Lord. Of the healings in Matthew, which is to be put first in 
time? As we have seen, the harmonists are divided, but there 
seem to be less difficulties in putting the healing of the blind 
and dumb possessed (Matthew xii. 22) before that of the dumb 
possessed (Matt. ix. 32).? 

The order of events is of importance only as showing how 
early in His ministry the Pharisees charged the Lord with being 
aided by Beelzebub. It is easily credible that they brought the 
charge early, but at first in a reserved way, and afterward 
more openly. 


1 Krafft (85) attempts to show that the discourse (Matt. xii. 25-45) was not all 
spoken at once, nor has reference to the same miracle, but all from yerse 88 on has 
reference to the miracle in Matt. ix. But this division is arbitrary. 

2 It has been questioned whether the words (ix. 34): ‘* But the Pharisees said, He 
casteth out devils through the prince of the devils,” are not to be regarded as an inter- 
polation. They are put by W. and H. in brackets, but are kept by Tisch., and in R. V. 
and generally. See Eders., i. 516. 


Part IV.] BLASPHEMY OF THE PHARISEES, 289 


That the healing of the dumb and blind possessed man took 
place at Capernaum, may be inferred from the mention of ‘the 
scribes which came down from Jerusalem” (Mark iii. 22), and 
who would naturally seek Him in the place of His residence. 
Their presence at this time may be ascribed to the powerful im- 
pression which the raising of the widow’s son at Nain had made 
upon all who heard of it, and the consequent necessity on the 
part of His enemies of taking some steps to counteract it. The 
cure of the possessed, it is said, amazed the people, and led them 
to ask, “Is not this the Son of David?” So far as we know, 
this was the first time that this specially Messianic title had been 
given Him; nor does it clearly appear what there was in this 
miracle that should lead them thus to speak. It would, how- 
ever, naturally arouse the jealousy of the Pharisees, and make 
them the more eager to oppose Him. As the fact of the heal- 
ing was beyond dispute, they could only assert that it was done 
through the aid of the prince of the devils. This ascription of 
His miracles to Satanic agency marks a decided progress in 
Pharisaic hostility. Heretofore they had said of Him that He 
was a Sabbath breaker and a blasphemer ; now they say that He 
is in league with evil spirits. And this charge reached much 
farther than to this particular miracle. It was virtually ascribing 
all that He said and did to a diabolical origin. and made the 
Spirit of God that rested upon Him to be the spirit of Beelze- 
bub ; and hence the severity of His language in reply (Matt. xii. 
34). To understand this charge of the Pharisees, we must re- 
member the common belief of the day, that miracles could be 
wrought by the help of evil spirits; and that therefore the 
possession of miraculous power did not prove that a man was 
sent from God. It was necessary for the Lord’s enemies to ex- 
plain His many mighty works; for if He did them by the help 
of God, there was no alternative but to receive Him and His 
teachings. The only way of escape was to ascribe His miracles 
to the powers of darkness. Aside from the folly of supposing 
that Satan would cast out Satan, there was the blasphemy 
against the Holy Ghost in ascribing works wrought by His help, 
and manifestly good, to the prince of the demons.’ 


1 Those who wish to see how a modern Jew defends the action of the Pharisees 
and Scribes, will find a defense of them in Cohen, Les Déicides, 39 ff. The writer leaves 
13 


290 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


It appears from Mark (iii. 22), that those who made this 
charge were the scribes which came down from Jerusalem. 
Luke (xi. 15) uses the indefinite expression, “ some of them said.” 
Matthew (xii. 24) refers it to the Pharisees. (In Mark ii. 16 R. 
V. “The scribes of the Pharisees” are spoken of ; in Luke vy. 30, 
‘The Pharisees and their scribes.” While the scribes were gen- 
erally of the Pharisaic party, there were some of the Sadducees. 
Schiirer, ii. 1. 313.) These scribes were doubtless themselves 
Pharisees, possibly also priests or Levites. Alexander remarks: 
“Tt is a serious error to suppose that these descriptive titles 
are exclusive of each other, and denote so many independ- 
ent classes, whereas they only denote different characters or 
relations, which might all meet in one and the same person, 
as being at the same time a priest and Levite by descent and 
sacred office, a scribe by profession, and a Pharisee in sentiment 
and party connection.” But although originally the priests were 
scribes, as HEzra (Neh. viii. 9), yet at this period the scribes 
made a distinct class. It is not improbable that they came as 
a formal deputation to watch His proceedings, and to organize 
His enemies against Him throughout Galilee. Doubtless their 
calumny, that He was aided by Beelzebub, was caught up and 
reiterated by the Pharisees of Capernaum. 

The visit of His mother and brethren is mentioned by all the 
Synoptists; and that it occurred during, or immediately after, 
the reply to the Pharisees, appears from Matt. xii. 46. Luke 
(viii. 19) has it in another connection, but without any note of 
time. We distinguish it from the visit of His friends (Mark iii. 
21), which took place soon after the choice of Apostles, and of 
which we have already spoken. We cannot tell where His 
mother and brethren were at this time residing ; some say at 
Cana, others at Nazareth, others at Capernaum. The Roman 
Catholic writers in general attempt to separate His mother from 
His brethren, as not acting with them. (See Maldonatus on Mark 
iii.31.) Itisevident that Mary and His brethren were presuming 
too much on their near relationship to Him; and that He wished 
to teach them that, when engaged in His Father’s work, merely 


it uncertain whether the Lord really wrought miracles, or only pretended so to do; nor 
does he mention the fact that the Jews believed them to be real, but attributed them to evil 
spirits. As to Jewish belief respecting miracles, see Eders., i. 574. 


a 


Part 1V.] FIRST TEACIING IN PARABLES. _ 291 


human bonds must give place to higher obligations. Mary here 
showed the same spirit that twice before He had gently rebuked 
(Luke ii. 49 ; John ii. 4). 


Autumn, 781. A.D. 28. 


The same day He leaves His house and sits by the sea- Marv. xiii. 1-52. 
side, and as the multitudes gather to Him, He entersaship, MARrkK iv. 1-34. 
and teaches them in parables. At the close of theday, He LUKE viii. 4-18. 
gives commandment to depart to the other side. Asthey Marv. viii. 18-27. 
are preparing to go, He holds a conversation with a LUKE ix. 57-60. 
scribe, and with one of His disciples about following Him. Marx iv. 35-41. 
He enters the ship with the disciples, and crosses the sea. LUKE viii. 22-25. 
Upon the way a violent tempest arises, Jesus rebukes the 
wind and waves, and there is a great calm. 


There is no reason why the language of Matthew ‘‘in the 
same day ”—év t7 7uépa éxetvy—should not here be taken 
strictly, although sometimes used indefinitely (Acts viii. 1). It 
was the same day as that on which His mother and brethren 
visited Him, and on which He healed the blind and dumb pos- 
sessed. Mark (iv. 1) has the same order. Luke (viii. 4-19) 
narrates the teaching in parables before His mother’s visit. 
Whether the narration of the two who would follow Him (Matt. 
vill. 19-22), is the same as that mentioned by Luke (ix. 57-60), 
who speaks of three ; and whether we are to follow the order of 
Matthew or Luke, will be considered when the Lord’s last jour- 
ney is examined. 

It isa question whether all the parables given by Matthew 
(xili.) were spoken at once, and if not, when and where? Mark, 
although he gives only those of the sower and the mustard seed, 
implies that there were others (iv. 2): “And He taught them 
many things by parables,” language almost the same as that of 
Matthew (xiii. 3): “And He spake many things unto them in 
parables.” After He had spoken the parable of the sower, it is 
said (Matt. xiii. 10) that His disciples came to ask Him why 
He spake in parables. Mark (iv. 10) says: ““When He was 
alone, they that were about Him with the Twelve asked of 
Him the parable.” Whether He was yet in the ship, or had 
gone to the shore. does not appear. Greswell attempts to show 
that the disciples did not ask any explanation of the parable of 


292 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part LV. 


the sower ai this time, but only why He spake in parables at 
all. Afterward, when He had gone into the house (Matt. xiii. 
36), they asked Him the meaning of this particular parable, and 
also of that of the tares. This involves more difficulties than it 
removes. Krafft makes the teaching in parables to have occu- 
pied at least two days. (See Luke viii. 22, who makes a dis- 
tinction between the day of the visit of His mother and brethren, 
and that when He spake the parable of the sower.) In this 
case, Mark (iv. 35) refers not to the day when He went down 
to the seaside, but to the day following. Stier supposes the 
seven parables of Matthew to have been spoken on one day: 
the first four to the people on the shore, the last three to the dis- 
ciples in the house. (So Keil.) Trench remarks: “ The first four 
were spoken to the multitude while He taught them out of the 
ship; the three last on the same day in the narrow circle of His 
disciples at His own house.” After several parables had been 
spoken, there was a pause (Mark iv. 10; Matt. xiii. 10), and 
then the questions following were asked. 

It must remain doubtful whether this teaching in parables 
did not occupy more than one day. If, however, we limit it to 
one, we may give the following order of events as a probable 
one. After Jesus had spoken the parable of the sower, He 
paused for a while, perhaps to give His hearers time to reflect 
upon it. During this interval, the Twelve and other disciples 
asked Him, first, why He taught in parables; and second, what 
this parable was? Where these questions were asked, is uncer- 
tain. Two circumstances only define it: that ‘He was alone” 
(Mark iv. 10), or separated from the multitude; and that “the 
disciples came to Him” (Matt. xiii. 10). All this may have 
taken place while He was still in the boat, in which with Him 
were doubtless the Twelve, and others may have joined them. 
By withdrawing a little way from the shore, they would be 
strictly alone. Greswell (ii. 440) objects that the multitude 
could not be called “those that are without” (Mark iv. 11), 
unless Jesus and the disciples were somewhere within, that is, 
in a house; but the distinction is not one of locality, but of 
moral preparedness. After His explanations to the disciples, 
Jesus again teaches the people, and adds the parables of the 


Part IV.] JESUS CROSSES THE SEA OF GALILEE. 293 


tares and wheat, the mustard seed, and the leaven. At this 
point, dismissing the multitude, He returns to His house, and 
His disciples coming to Him, He expounds to them the tares 
and wheat, and adds the parables of the hid treasure, the pearl, 
and the net. Going again at even to the shore, and the multi- 
tudes gathering around Him, He gives order to pass to the other 
side. The disciples, therefore, send away the people, and take 
Him as He is in the ship.’ ‘ 
This teaching in parables plainly marks an onward step in 
the Lord’s ministry. He had now testified of Himself both in 
word and deed, had manifested Himself as the Messiah ; and it 
was becoming apparent to Him that the great body of the peo- 
ple had no discernment of His divine character and mission, and 
would not receive Him, however they might for a time be per- 
sonally attracted to Him, and marvel at His words and works. 
The Pharisees, the spiritual leaders, both at Jerusalem and in 
Galilee, had not only taken decided steps against Him, but had 
accused Him of being helped in His work by Beelzebub. This 
utter spiritual incapacity to see the true nature of His teachings 
and acts, and the determined hostility which it manifested, 
showed Him that the time had come when He must change the 
form of His speech, and not expose the holy things of God to 
reproach. Though with the common people His popularity 
seemed now at its height, He discerned that there was no root 
of faith, and that most followed Him through motives of won- 
der or idle curiosity. He could, therefore, well speak of them 
‘Matt. xiii, 13-15) as hearing His words, and yet not understand- 
ug them; as seeing His works, and not perceiving their signifi- 
cance. To them He could not explain the mysteries of the 
kingdom. He must use the form of the parable which, hiding 
its meaning from the careless and foolish, opened it to the dil- 
gent and wise seeker after truth. As is well said by Thiersch 
(Parables): ‘These parables are of the nature of warnings to the 
disciples, and contain also great promises and mysteries of the 
kingdom of heaven. The Lord declared these warnings and 
prophecies purposely in obscure language, in order to hide their 
meaning from blasphemers and skeptics, whose anger He was 


1 See Newcome, Har., 256. 


294 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


unwilling to excite; and yet so as to confirm the faith of His 
disciples, to whom He explained all things.” To the same 
effect Abp. Thomson styles a parable, “a mode for keeping the 
seed safe till the time should arrive for the quickening spirit to 
come down and give it growth.” 

The motive of the Lord in crossing the lake is not stated, 
but apparently it was to escape the crowds, never satisfied with 
hearing Him, and ito find rest (Matt. viii. 18). His disciples 
‘took Him as He was in the ship,” or without any preparation 
for the journey; which implies that it was not premeditated, but 
suddenly determined on (Mark iv. 36). It was ‘ even,” prob- 
ably near sundown, when they left the shore, and wearied by 
the labors of the day the Lord soon fell asleep. While thus 
sleeping a fierce storm burst upon them. How exposed is the 
Sea of Galilee, from its peculiar position, to these storms, all 
travellers have remarked; but few have had any personal ex- 
perience of their fury. Thomson (ii. 32), however, was for 
several days upon its shores during one of them, the character 
of which he thus describes: ‘To understand the causes of these 
sudden and violent tempests we must remember that the lake 
lies low, six hundred feet lower than the ocean ; that the vast 
and naked plateaus of the Jaulan rise to a great height, spread. 
ing backwards to the wilds of the Hauran, and upward tosnowy 
Hermon; that the water courses have cut out profound ravines, and 
wild gorges converging to the head of the lake, and that these 
act like gigantic funnels to draw down the cold winds from the 
mountains. And, moreover, these winds are not only violent, 
but they come down suddenly, and often when the sky is perfectly 
clear. I once went in to swim near the hot baths, and before I 
was aware, a wind came rushing over the cliffs with such force 
that it was with great difficulty I could regain the shore.” Of 
another storm, when on the eastern shore, he says: “The sun 
had scarcely set when the wind began to rush down toward the 
lake, and it continued all night long with constantly increasing 
violence, so that when we reached the shore next morning, the 
face of the lake was like a huge boiling caldron.” ‘We had 
to double-pin all the tent ropes, and frequently were obliged to 
hang with our whole weight upon them to keep the quivering 


Part IV.] THE DEMONIACS AT GERGESA. 295 


tabernacle from being carried off bodily into the air.” (See 
Wilson, Bib. Ed., iii. 284.) 

The attempts to determine at what season of the year the 
parables were spoken through the natural analogies upon which 
they are based, as Norton inferred that it was seed-time, or 
about November, because of the reference to the sowing of seed, 
lead to no substantial result. So also the storm does not, as 
said by him, define the time as winter; or as an equinoctial 
quarter of the year, as said by Greswell. That it was during the 
late autumn or early winter, is upon other grounds probable. 


Autumn, 781. A. D. %8. 


After the stilling of the tempest, He comes to the csun- Marv. viii. 28-34. 
try of the Gergesenes. As He lands, He is met by two Mark vy. 1-18. 
men possessed by demons, whose dwelling is in the LUKE viii. 26-39. 
tombs near by. Beholding Jesus, they run to meet Him, 
and He, casting out the demons, permits them to enter a 
herd of swine that is feeding near. The swine, so pos- 
sessed, run down the hill-side into the sea and perish, and 
the inhabitants, coming to Him, desire Him to depart from 
their coasts. After directing the healed demoniacs to pro- Mark y. 19, 20. 
claim through Decapolis what had been done forthem, He Marv. ix. 1, 
returns to Capernaum. 

Several questions meet us here. First, as to the time when 
the Lord reached Gergesa. He left Capernaum, as we are 
told in Mark, “when the even was come”; that He reached the 
opposite shore while it was broad daylight, is shown by the 
fact that the demoniacs “saw Jesus afar off.” Was this on the 
evening of the day, or the next morning? It is said by Eders- 
heim (i. 606) that He landed on the east shore late in the even- 
ing: “All the circumstances lead us to regard the healing of 
the demonized at Gerasa as a night scene.” If we take ‘the 
even,” as it is sometimes to be taken. as the latter part of the 
afternoon, or from three to six o’clock, the Lord may have 
reached Gergesa, notwithstanding the storm, before sundown. 
But it may have been that the departure was later, during the 
second evening — six to nine —and that, delayed by the storm, . 
the landing on the east shore was not till the next morning. 
This is the more general view, and seems to find confirmation 
in the fact that the Lord was asleep. Greswell (ii. 204), 


296 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


thinks that the Lord did -not sail till after sunset; that He spent 
the night on the lake, and landed on the east side in the early 
morning. (See also ii. 338.) 

Another question concerns the place where the Lord met the 
demoniacs. As this has been much discussed, a brief statement 
of the points in dispute must be made. 


The first point is to determine the reading. Three places, or dis- 
tricts, are mentioned: the country — x4épa — of the Gadarenes, of the 
Gergesenes, and of the Gerasenes. In the TYertus receptus, Matthew 
(viii. 28) has ‘‘ of the Gergesenes;” but Tisch., W. and H., and R. V., 
“‘of the Gadarenes”’; Mark (v. 1) has ‘‘of the Gadarenes”; but Tisch., 
W. and H., and R. V., ‘‘of the Gerasenes”; Luke (viii. 26) has 
“of the Gadarenes”; but W. an 7I. and R. V., ‘‘of the Gerasenes”’; 
Tisch., Keil, and Riddle, “‘oi ... Gergesenes”. We have thus three 
pleces before us: Gadara, Gerasa, and Gergesa, and we must ask 
what knowledge we have of their positions. Gadara is mentioned 
by Josephus (War, iv. 7. 3) as the capital of Persea, and as de- 
stroyed by Vespasian; it is counted as one of the cities of the Decapo- 
lis (Casp., 97; Schirer, ii. 1. 100). It is generally admitted that it 
stood upon the site now known as Um Keis, lying some six or eight 
miles southeast of the sea of Galilee, and three south of the Yarmuk 
or ancient Hieromax (Thomson, ii. 35). It is plain that Gadara, if the 
city be meant, is too remote to answer to the conditions of the narra- 
tive, for this plainly implies that the place of meeting the demoniacs 
was upon or near the shore. Mark (v. 2) says: ‘‘And when He was 
come out of the ship, immediately there met Him out of the tombs,” 
ff. This statement cannot well be understood, as observed by 
Alexander, otherwise than that He was met ‘‘as He landed, not 
merely after he had done so, which would admit of an indefinite 
interval; whereas the landing and the meeting were simultaneous, 
or immediately successive.” The narrative, however, does not say 
that the event took place in the immediate vicinity of the city — 
7éds — but implies the contrary (Matt. viii. 33). 

Gerasa is mentioned by Josephus (War, iii. 3. 3; iv. 9. 1) as lying 
upon the eastern border of Perea; and is now known as Jerash. It 
was one of the chief cities of the Decapolis, and its ruins are among 
the most beautiful and best preserved in all Palestine. (See Baedeker, 
391, for full description and plans.) It is some twenty miles east of 
the Jordan, and far distant from the sea of Galilee, and cannot be 
meant as the place where the demoniacs were met. 

‘*Gergesenes”’ is the rendering of the received text (Matthew viii. 


Part IV.] GADARA AND GERGESA. 297 


28), but is now generally rejected on critical grounds as an emend- 
ation of Origen, and ‘‘Gadarenes” preferred. That there was a 
city called Gergesa is affirmed by Origen, but his testimony has been 
generally rejected as unsupported (Godet on Luke viii. 26; see Re- 


Y) 
My 


4 
Das 


7 

‘ 

! : 
AS 

t Williaa 


= 


yy 
% 
C7 “orp 








NORTHEASTERN PART OF THE SEA OF GALILEE SHOWING THE ENTRANCE OF 
THE JORDAN, AND THE SITE OF KERSA OR GERGESA. 


land, 806). He places it upon the Lake of Tiberias, and near the 

shore; and adds that the precipice is still pointed out where the 

swine rushed into the sea. Alford (on Matt. viii. 28) doubts the 

existence of such a city; but still questions whether ‘‘ Gergesenes” 

could, as a mere conjecture of Origen’s, have found its way into so 
13* 


298 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


many ancient versions, and adopts it as the true reading. (So Far- 
rar, 254, note; McClellan, 650.) Bleek thinks that Origen’s words 
show that there was such a place in his day, the traditional site of 
the miracle, and one answering to its conditions (see T. G. Lex., sub 
voce). This seems to be a fair statement of the matter, and it is con- 
firmed by Eusebius, who says that in his day a village was shown 
upon the mountain near Lake Tiberias, where the swine ran down 
(see also Jerome; McClellan, 649; Raumer, 218 note, and 331). 
We may, then, accept as credible the statement of Origen, that there 
was in his day a town by the name of Gergesa near the lake, which 
tradition made the scene of the miracle; and the absence of all later 
mention of it by name would show only that it had fallen into decay. 
But, within a few years, its site has been re-discovered under the vari- 
ous names, Kersa, Chersa, or Gersa. Dr. Thomson, (Land and Book, 
ii. 25), to whom this discovery is owing, found Gersa near the point 
where Wady Semak enters the lake, nearly opposite the plain of 
Gennesaret. ‘‘In this Gersa, we have a position which fulfills every 
requirement of the narrative, and with a name so near that in Matthew, 
as to be in itself a strong corroboration of the truth of this identifica- 
tion. It is within a few rods of the shore, and an immense mountain 
rises directly above it, in which are ancient tombs, out of some of 
which the two men possessed of the devils may have issued to meet 
Jesus. The lake is so near the base of the mountain that the swine, 
rushing madly down it could not stop, but would be hurried on into 
the water and drowned. The place is one which our Lord would be 
likely to visit, having Capernaum in full view to the north, and Gali- 
lee ‘ over against it,’ as Luke says it was (vill. 26). The name, how- 
ever, pronounced by Bedawin Arabs, is so similar to Gergesa, that, to 
all my inquiries for this place, they invariably said it was at Chersa, 
and they insisted that they were identical, and I agree with them in 
this opinion.” Here Dr. T. found some ruins. ‘‘It was a small 
place, but the walls can be traced all around, and there seems to 
have been considerable suburbs.” Col. Wilson (Recovery of Jer., 
286) says: ‘‘ On the left bank of Wady Semak, and at the point where 
the hills end and the plain stretches out toward the lake, are the 
ruirs of Khersa —Gergesa, The site is enclosed by a wall three feet 
thick. The remains are not of much importance. . . . On the 
shore of the lake are a few ruined buildings, to which the same name 
was given by the Bedawin. About a mile south of this, the hills, 
which everywhere else on the eastern side are recessed from half to 
three-quarters of a mile from the water's edge, approach within forty 
feet of it; they do not terminate abruptly, but there is asteep even 











Part IV.1 SITE OF GERGESA. 299 


slope, which we would identify with the ‘steep place’ down which 
the herd of swine ran violently into the sea, and so were choked.” 
Schumacher (The Jaulan, Qt. St. 1888, 179) says: ‘‘ The remains date 
from two periods, a more ancient one, from which only scattered 
building stones and foundations are still extant; and a more recent 
one, probably Roman. . . . The ruins are extended, and it is 
thought that traces of qeuedcts can be distinguished.” Merrill 
places Kersa six miles south from the entrance of the Jordan into the 
lake. 

Thus one chief condition of the miracle is fully satisfied. There 
is a short strip of the coast, and only one on the east side, where the 
mountain is so near the water, that the herd rushing down would 
plunge into the lake. That there should be herds of swine in this 
region is explained by the fact that the population was in great part 
heathen and not Jewish. Schiirer, speaking of Gadara, says: ‘‘ There 
is abundant evidence that it was already in pre-Christian times, a 
flourishing HelJenistic town” (Joseph., Antiq., vii. 11.4). The Jews, 
living in such a community, might breed them for sale, if they 
did not themselves eat them. It is said by Pressensé, that ‘‘ they 
carried on without scruple a forbidden traffic, keeping herds of 
swine on their hills.” And here good feeding ground was found. 
Of the hill-sides at Gergesa, McGregor says: ‘‘A verdant sward is 
here with many bulbous fruits, which swine might feed upon; and 
here I saw a very large herd of oxen, horses, camels, sheep, asses, 
and goats, all feeding together.” 

Other conditions are also met. There are natural cavities in the 
rocks which might serve well for tombs. Schumacher (179) says: 
“The lime rocks of the neighborhood have several large natural 
cavities, especially on the lower ruin over the slope.” Although Sir 
C. Wilson did not see any rock-hewn tombs near Kersa, yet he thinks 
that the demoniacs may have lived in the tombs built above ground, 
such as are still seen at Tell Hum, and of which he saw some traces 
not far from the shore. But Thomson says that ‘‘an immense 
mountain lies directly above Kersa, in which are ancient tombs.” 

There is also the steep descent or slope, not a cliff or precipice, 
which the word —kpnurvds—does not mean. It is possible that 
it may refer to the peculiar formation of the beach for half a 
mile in length, which is thus described by McGregor (411): ‘‘It is 
flat until close to the edge. ‘There a hedge of oleanders fringes the 
end of the plain, and immediately below these is a gravel beach, in- 
clined so steep that, when my boat was at the shore, I could not see 
over the top even by standing up; while the water along-side is so 


300 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


deey that it covered my paddle (seven feet long) when dipped in 
vertically a few feet from the shore.” 

Thus the miracle finds abundant confirmation in all its local 
details. Just at the point where all other conditions of the narrative 
are met, we find the ruins of a town known to the Bedawin as Kersa, 
and this is now generally accepted as the place of the miracle. The 
real difficulty, as long since said by Wieseler, is to reconcile the varia- 
tions of the text. But into this we are not called to enter. 
Whether Kersa can be derived from Gergesa (contra, Riehm, i. 454) 
or must represent Gerasa (Edersheim, i. 607), or whether the place was 
anciently called Gergesa, and afterwards Gerasa (McClellan), we must 
leave to the philologist. 

We may picture the scene in Thomson’s words: ‘‘Take your 
stand a little south of this Chersa. A great herd of swine, we will 
suppose, is feeding on this mountain that towers above it. They are 
seized with a sudden panic, rush madly down the almost perpendicular 
declivity, those behind tumbling over and thrusting forward those be- 
fore, and, as there is neither time nor space to recover on the narrow 
shelf between the base and the lake, they are crowded headlong into 
the water, and perish. All is perfectly natural just at this point, 
and here, I suppose, it did actually occur.” 


This discovery of the site of Gergesa removes all topograph- 
ical difficulties from the sacred narratives. It is therefore un- 
necessary to mention in detail the other solutions that have been 
proposed, as that of Ebrard (324), who, in answer to DeWette, 
attempts to show that Gadara was but an hour distant from the 
sea; and that of Stanley (372) who places the scene of these 
events in Wady Feik, nearly opposite Tiberias. 

We may then thus picture this incident to ourselves. The 
Lord, leaving Capernaum at even to avoid the ever-thronging 
multitude, directs his course southeasterly toward Gergesa. 
The storm bursting suddenly upon them during the evening, 
He by His word calms the sea. Very early in the morning He 
lands upon the coast of Gergesa, a little way south from the city. 
Here He is met, as He lands, by the demoniacs. Upon the 
steep slopes of the adjacent mountain the swine are feeding, 
and to Him upon the shore come out the inhabitants of the city, 
beseeching Him to depart from their coasts. 

Matthew mentions two demoniacs; Mark and Luke but one. 
How shall this discrepancy be explained? Lightfoot (on Mark 





Part 1V.] JESUS RETURNS TO CAPERNAUM. 301 


vy. 1), who supposes that Gergesa was the name of a district em- 
bracing within it Gadara, which was a heathen city, makes one 
of the two to have been a Gadarene, and the other a Gergesene. 
Matthew, he says, mentions both, but Mark and Luke mention only 
him from Gadara as a heathen demoniac, “that so they might make 
the story more famous.” Some, as Ebrard, make Matthew to have 
blended this case with that of the possessed healed at Caper- 
naum (Mark i 23). Da Costa supposes that Matthew knew that 
there was in fact but one, but that he might have seen a man 
attacked by the demoniac, and so gives the impression upon his 
mind as if there were two ! 

The common and most probable explanation is, that there 
were indeed two, but that one was much more prominent than 
the other, either as the fiercer of the two, or as of a higher rank 
and better known, and therefore alone mentioned by Mark and 
Luke.’ That their silence respecting one of the demoniacs does 
not exclude him, Robinson thus illustrates:? “In the year 1824 
Lafayette visited the United States, and was everywhere wel- 
comed with honors and pageants. Historians will describe these 
as a noble incident in his life. Other writers will relate the 
same visit as made, and the same honors as enjoyed, by two per- 
sons, viz., Lafayette and his son. Will there be any contradic- 
tion between these two classes of writers? Will not both re- 
cord the truth?” Greswell (i. 210) thinks that one of those 
thus healed became a disciple, and that the other did not. The 
former being thus better known, and his case invested with a 
personal interest, Mark and Luke speak of him only, and in 
much detail; while Matthew, who desires only to illustrate the 
power of Christ over evil spirits, mentions the healing of both, 
but says nothing of their subsequent history. He prefers, how- 
ever, the conjecture based on Luke viii. 27, that this one 
demoniac was an inhabitant, and probably a native of Gergesa, 
but not the other. 

Meyer, on the other hand, rejects all attempts to explain 
away the discrepancy; and Alford, who supposes that there was 
but one demoniac, thinks that perhaps his words, ‘“ My name is 


1 So early, Augustine; and recently, Alexander, Krafft, Stier, Greswell, Ellicott 
McClel., Godet. 
2 Har., 195. 


302 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


Legion, for we are many” (Mark v. 9), may have given rise 
to the report of two demoniacs in Matthew. 

The request of the Gergesenes that Jesus would depart from 
their coasts, shows how material interests ruled in their minds, 
and how unprepared were they to understand the real signifi- 
cance of His work. The healing of the demoniacs, so mighty a 
miracle, and their restoration to sound mind and to their 
families and friends, were of less value than the loss of their 
swine. 

The direction to the healed to go to their homes (Mark y. 19) 
and proclaim what the Lord had done for them, so contrary to His 
general custom, shows that it was His desire to call attention to 
Himself in this section of the land, and, by making this miracle 
widely known, prepare the way for subsequent labors. Perhaps, 
also, something in the moral condition of the healed made this 
desirable for them. 


‘ 


Autumn, 781. A.D. 28. 


Immediately upon His return to Capernaum He is LukE viii. 40-56. 
surrounded by the multitude, which has been waiting for Mark v. 21-43. 
Him. Being invited by Matthew to a feast at his house, Mark ii. 15-22. 
He there holds conversation with some Pharisees, and LUKE y. 29-39. 
afterward with some of John’s disciples. While yet Marr. ix. 10-17. 
speaking with them, comes Jairus, a ruler of the syna- Mart, ix, 18-26. 
gogue, praying for the healing of his daughter. As Jesus 
is on His way to the house of Jairus, He heals a wo- 
man with an issue of blood. A messenger meeting Him 
announces the death of the girl, but He proceeds, and, 
entering the house, restores her to life. 


We may put His arrival at Capernaum about midday. The 
crowds that for several days had been following Him, were 
awaiting eagerly His return, and now gladly received Him. 
According to Matthew (ix. 2), after this return He healed the 
paralytic, but according to Mark (ii. 3 ff.), this was earlier, and 
after the Lord’s return from His first circuit. "We have followed 
the orderin Mark.’ Allthe Synoptists mention the call of Levi as 
immediately following the healing of the paralytic. The question 


1 So Rob., Alex., Licht., Ellicott, Fried., McClel., Stroud, Fuller; following Mat. 
thew, Bengel, Farrar, Keil. 


Part IV.] THE FEAST OF LEVI. 303 


that here meets us, and upon the answer to which the order of 
subsequent events depends, is, Did the feast given by Levi 
follow immediately upon his call, or was it after the Lord 
returned from Gergesa? In the order we follow, the two are 
separated. The question cannot be answered upon any ground of 
intrinsic fitness. It is said by Plumptre (in Hllicott’s Com.) that 
this feast was a “farewell feast to his friends and neighbors be- 
fore he entered upon his new calling.” But such a feast would 
aot have been in harmony with his new calling. It is more 
probable that he made it to give the Lord and the disciples an 
opportunity to meet the guests in this social way, with reference 
to a better knowledge of Him. But we may believe that this 
“oreat feast,” for which special preparation was needed, was 
after some days or weeks, rather than that it was on the day of 
the call." That the feast was a few days later than the call 
appears from the relations in which it is placed to the Lord’s 
words addressed to the Pharisees in regard to eating with pub- 
licans and sinners, and to those addressed to John’s disciples in 
regard to fasting. It seems from Matthew’s words (ix. 10 ff.), 
that this feast gave occasion to their questions and His replies, 
for we are told that “‘many publicans and sinners came and sat 
down with Him and His disciples.” And from the offense 
taken by John’s disciples and the Pharisees in regard to fasting, 
we may infer that the supper was upon a day in which they 
fasted. (That this was a fasting day, one of the two — Monday 
and Thursday — which were observed by the more scrupulous, 
(Luke xviii. 12,) is probable, if we accept the rendering in Mark 
li, 18, R. V.: “And John’s disciples and the Pharisees were 
fasting, and they came.”) We cannot well separate these replies 
of the Lord from the feast of Levi, which would naturally give 
occasion to the questions addressed to Him and to His disci- 
ples; and inthis most are agreed. But we have still to ask how 
these replies stand in order of time to the raising of the daugh- 
ter of Jairus. Matthew alone of the Synoptists, brings the two 
into immediate connection, verse 18: ‘‘ While He spake these 
things unto them ” —to John’s disciples — ‘behold there came 

1 Opinions are much divided; for uniting the two, Gardiner, Caspari, Friedlieb, 


Ellicott, Stroud, Fuller; for separating them by some interval, Robinson, McClel., Far 
Tar, Riggenbach. 


304 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


acertain ruler, . . . and Jesus arose and followed him.” 
Some say (so Meyer) that Jairus came to the house of Levi dur- 
ing the feast, and that the Lord arose from the table, and went 
with him. It is said by McClellan: “He passed from Levi's 
house of feasting to Jairus’ house of mourning.” But that the 
Pharisees were any of them present at the feast, whether 
as spectators or spies, as held by Alexander, cannot be 
affirmed, though oriental freedom on such occasions would 
have permitted it, and the words of Matthew point to it; on 
the other hand, it is almost certain that their scruples in re- 
gard to ceremonial defilement would have prevented them. 
Probably the same scruples would have made John’s disciples to 
stand aloof. But, if not present, the fact of the Lord’s presence 
at such a feast must very soon have become generally known. 
It is said by Alford that “the remonstrance addressed to the 
disciples, ‘ Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?’ 
cannot have taken place at the feast, but denotes an occasion 
when the Lord and the disciples were present, and not inter- 
mixed with the great crowd of publicans.” 

There are some who separate the Lord’s answer to the Phar- 
isees from that to John’s disciples, and put some interval 
between them. But, they cannot well be separated, the 
internal connection showing that both were spoken on the same 
occasion. Gardiner, who follows Mark’s order, supposes that 
the discourse concerning fasting may have been repeated. 
Greswell (ii. 398) thinks that as Matthew puts the feast just 
after the return from Gergesa, and Mark and Luke put it 
immediately after his call, we must accept two feasts, one 
in Levi's own house, the other in the house of Simon and 
Andrew, where the Lord had His abode. There seems little 
ground for this. As it is clear from Mark (v. 22, 23) and Luke 
(viii. 40, 41) that the raising of the daughter of Jairus was 
after the return from Gergesa, we put the feast of Levi or 
Matthew after this return. Still it is admitted that the com- 
ing of Jairus may have been some time subsequent to the feast. 
for it is not certain that the reply to the Pharisees took place at 
the feast; or, if it did so, that the reply to John’s disciples was 
at the same time ; but the probabilities are, that all took place 
on the same evening in which He went with Jairus. 





Part IV.] ' THE FEAST OF LEVI. 305 


As there is much difference of opinion among harmonists, 
where this feast is to be placed, we give some of the proposed 
arrangements, which connect as immediately successive the call of 
Levi and his feast. 

1. Lichtenstein: The Lord teaches in parables; crosses the 
sea, and heals the demoniacs at Gergesa; returns to Capernaum; 
heals the paralytic ; calls Matthew; attends Matthew’s feast; 
raises up the daughter of Jairus; chooses Apostles; and delivers 
Sermon on the Mount. This isopen to the insuperable objection 
that the teaching in parables precedes the choice of Apostles and 
the Sermon on the Mount. 

2. Stier: The Lord chooses Apostles; teaches in parables; 
crosses the sea, and heals the demoniacs; returns to Capernaum; 
heals the paralytic; calls Matthew; attends his feast; raises up 
the daughter of Jairus. It is a sufficient objection to this order, 
that the choice of Matthew as an Apostle precedes his call. 

3. Ebrard: The Lord teaches in parables ; crosses the sea, 
and heals the demoniacs ; returns to Capernaum; answers the 
questions of John’s disciples respecting fasting; raises the 
daughter of Jairus; heals the blind, and the dumb possessed, 
and the paralytic; calls Levi, and attends his feast; chooses the 
Apostles; and delivers the Sermon on the Mount. This 
arrangement is open to the same objection as the first, that 
it puts the teaching in parables before the choice of the Apos- 
tles and the Sermon on the Mount. 

In the above arrangements, the call of Levi and the feast are 
both put after the teaching in parables and the healing of the 
Gergasene demoniacs, but others put them much earlier. Thus, 
Friedlieb and Fuller put them before the unnamed feast (John v. 
1); and so generally those who suppose the Lord to have begun 
His Galilzan ministry in the summer or autumn of the first year of 
His public work. But if this ministry began after this unnamed 
feast, and the call of Levi was before the choice of Apostles, 
we must bring the narratives into accord by separating the call 
from the feast. 

The mention of John’s disciples at Capernaum is to be noted 
as showing that there were some there who did not follow Jesus, 
and their affinity with the Pharisees in ceremonial observances. 


306 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part Iv. 


(Luke v. 30, does not mention these disciples, but the Pharisees 
only.) 

The selection of Peter, James, and John, to go with Him to 
the house of Jairus, is the first instance recorded of special 
preference of these three above the other nine Apostles. It is 
hardly to be questioned that this selection was determined by 
the personal peculiarities of these three, which made them more 
ready than the others to understand the real meaning of Christ’s 
words and works, and to sympathize with Him in His trials and 
griefs. But why they should have been selected to be present 
at this particular miracle, is not apparent. It was not, accord- 
ing to the order which we follow, the first case of raising the 
dead; and therefore they were not present, as Trench supposes, 
on this ground. But, unlike the raising of the widow’s son at 
Nain, which was in public before all the funeral procession, the 
Lord will here have no witnesses but His three Apostles and the 
father and mother of the maiden. Nor will He allow the won- 
derful work to be proclaimed abroad: ‘He charged them 
strictly that no man should know it.” The grounds of these 
differences in the Lord’s actings are probably beyond our knowl- 
edge, and cannot be explained. That He now enjoined silence 
because He had ceased to work publicly in Capernaum, is dis- 
proved by His later miracles. The healing of the woman with 
an issue of blood presents nothing for our notice here. 


Autumn, 781. A.D. 28. 


Returning homeward from the house of Jairus, He is MArrT. ix. 27-31. 
followed by two blind men, saying, ‘‘Son of David, have 
mercy on us.” They enter His house and are h<aled, and 
He charges them not to speak of what He had done; but 
they, going forth, everywhere proclaim it. As they depart, 
a dumb possessed is brought to Him, whom He heals, Mart. ix. 32-34. 
to the astonishment of the multitude. This gives the 
Pharisees new occasion to say that He casts out devils 
through Satan. 


These cases of healing are mentioned only by Matthew, and 


by him in immediate connection with the raising to life of the 
daughter of Jairus, We assume that he here narrates in chron- © 





Part IV.] HEALING OF TWO BLIND MEN. 307 


ological order.’ Some’ identify Matt. ix. 32-34 with Luke xi 
14, 15; and as the healing of the possessed was immediately 
after that of the blind, place all these miracles at a much later 
period, and after the sending of the Seventy. 

By these blind men was Jesus for the first time addressed as 
“the Son of David.” This shows that His descent from that 
royal house was known and recognized. Already the people 
had asked of Him (Matt. xii. 23), “Is not this the Son of 
David?” (The American Committee read: “Can this be the Son 
of David?”) and the use of the title by the blind men shows 
their disposition to honor Him whose help they sought.’ 

The impression which the miracle of healing the dumb pos- 
sessed made upon the multitude, was very great, and explains 
why the Pharisees should repeat the charge that He cast out 
devils through the prince of devils. 


Winter, 781-782. A.D. 29. 


Leaving Capernaum, Jesus goes, accompanied by His Marv. xiii. 53-58. 
disciples, into lower Galilee, and again visits Nazareth. Mark vi. 1-6. 
Rejected here the second time, He goes about through Marv. ix. 35-38, 
the cities and villagesinthat region. During this circuit Mark vi. 7-13, 
He commissions and sends out the Twelve. In their ab- Marv. x. 1-42. 
sence He continues His work. About this time Johnis LuKE ix. 1-9. 
beheaded in prison, and the news of his deathis brought Marv. xiy. 1-12. 
to Jesus by some of John’s disciples. Herod now hears Mark yi. 14-30. 
of Christ, and expresses a desire to see Him. Jesus re- 
turns to Capernaum, and the Twelve gather to Him 
there. 


In the order of events we follow Mark: “ And He went out 
from thence, and came into His own country; and His disciples 
follow Him.” ‘The piace of departure was the house of Jairus 
(Meyer, Keil), or Capernaum and its neighborhood (Alexander). 


2 Robinson, Greswell, Lichtenstein, Lange, Ebrard, Gardiner. Alford, however, 
observes that tapayorre exeiOev is too vague to be taken as a fixed note of sequence; 
for éxetOev, ‘thence,’ may mean the house of Jairus, or the town itself, or even that part 
of the country, as verse 26 has generalized the locality, and implied some pause of time.” 
Edersheim -puts them at or near Capernaum on His return from Nain, and the healing of 
the blind and dumb possessed (Matt. xii. 22), at a later period. The point has already 
‘been considered. 

2 Krafft, Tischendorf. 

3 Compare (Matt. xx. 30) the healing of the two blind men at Jericho, when the 
mame title was used; as also by the woman of Canaan (xv. 22). 


308 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


Matthew (xiii, 53-58) narrates this visit to Nazareth immediately 
after his account of the teaching in parables: “And it came to 
pass when Jesus had finished these parables He departed thence. 
And when He was come into His own country,” etc. Here it is 
not said that this coming to Nazareth was immediately subse- 
quent to the departure after the parables were spoken. That 
departure was not to Nazareth, but across the sea to Gergesa 
(Mark iv. 35). We must then place between verses 53 and 54 
the healing of the demoniacs, of Jairus’s daughter, of the wo- 
man with issue of blood, of the two blind men, and of the dumb 
possessed. All these may have taken place on the day of the 
return from Gergesa; and thus, between the teaching in parables 
and the departure to Nazareth, only an interval of two days 
may have elapsed; but in all probability the period was much 
longer. 

The grounds upon which this visit at Nazareth is to be dis 
tinguished from the earlier one mentioned by Luke (iv. 16), 
have been already stated. The circumstances under which He 
now returns to His early home are very unlike those of that for- 
mer visit. Then, He had but newly begun His public labors, 
and was comparatively little known ; and great surprise was felt 
that one, who only a few months before had been an undistin- 
guished resident among them, should make so high pretensions. 
How could He, whom they had known from childhood up, be a 
prophet, and possess such powers? Now, His fame was spread 
throughout the whole land, and His character as a prophet was 
established. Crowds followed Him from all parts of the land. 
His miracles were familiar to all. He had, in the immediate 
neighborhood of Nazareth, raised a dead man to life. But His 
now enlarged and confirmed reputation did not weaken the feeling 
of surprise. All His life was familiar to them, and they could not 
velieve that He was in aught greater than themselves. Jesus, 
therefore, could now well, and even with greater emphasis, re- 
peat the proverb, “‘A prophet is not without honor but in his 
own country”; adding, with reference to the continued unbelief 
of His brethren, “and among his own kin, and in his own 
house.” (See John vii. 5.) The Nazarenes did not now take any 
violent measures against Him, though “offended at Him”; and 


Part 1V.] SECOND VISIT AT NAZARETH. 309 


after teaching in the synagogue and healing a few sick folk, He 
made a circuit through the adjacent villages (Mark vi. 6). It is 
probable that Matthew (ix. 35-38) has reference to this circuit. 

That the sending of the Twelve upon their mission was dur- 
ing this journey, appears from the order in which it stands in 
all the Synoptists. Matthew (ix. 35, ff.) connects it with the 
journey following the healing of the blind men and the dumb 
possessed; and Mark (vi. 7), with that following the departure 
from Nazareth. Luke does not mention this visit at Nazareth, 
but narrates the sending of the Twelve (ix. 1-6) directly after 
the healing of Jairus’s daughter. How long the circuit con- 
tinued, or at what point in it the Twelve were sent out, we have 
no data to determine. That it was extensive and occupied a 
considerable period may be fairly inferred from Matthew’s lan- 
guage (ix. 35), that “He went about all the cities and villages.” 
Nor can we tell from what place they were sent. Greswell (ii. 
342) supposes it to have been Capernaum, and that therefore 
the sending was just at the close of the circuit. “It is certain 
that after their mission they rejoined our Lord at Capernaum; 
and it is not probable that they would be sent from one quarter 
and be expected to rejoin Him at another.” On the other hand, 
Alford observes that no fixed locality can be assigned to their 
commission. ‘It was not delivered at Capernaum, but on a 
journey.” The view of Krafft (99), that they were sent from 
Jerusalem when Jesus was at the feast of Tabernacles (John v. 
1), is in every point of view unsatisfactory, and is refuted by the 
fact that the theatre of His activity was now Galilee, and not 
Judza. 

Where did the Twelve labor? Luke (ix. 6) says, “they de 
parted and went through the towns.” It has been supposed 
that this expression “towns,” xéuac, may be used here in op- 
position to cities, implying that the Twelve visited only the 
smaller places. But the same expression is used of the Lord 
Himself (Mark vi. 6). Probably their labors were confined to 
Galilee. They were forbidden to enter Samaria; and it is not 
likely that they would enter Judea from which the Lord was 
excluded. As they journeyed two by two, this would enable 
them to visit many towns in a few days. How long they were 


310 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


absent upon their mission does not appear. Wieseler. followed 
by Tischendorf, would limit it to a single day; Ellicott, to two 
days; Edersheim, to two weeks; Krafft extends it to several 
months; Greswell makes them to have been sent upon their 
ministry in February, and to have returned in March, an inter- 
val of near two months. That they were engaged in their labors 
several weeks at least, is plainly implied in the terms of their 
commission; and is confirmed by the brief statements of their 
actual labors. It is said in Luke ix. 6: “They went throughout 
the villages.” (See Godet, in loco: ‘They went through the 
country in general, staying in every little town.”) Their mission 
must have been of some considerable duration. 

The same question meets us in regard to the commission 
given to the Twelve as recorded by Matthew, that meet us in 
his record of the Sermon on the Mount. Is it a summary 
of all the instructions the Lord gave them respecting their 
work, instructions given on different occasions? (So Ellicott, 
194.) Or since we find some parts of it in Mark and Luke 
in different relations, did He repeat them as He judged fitting ? 
Perhaps both may be true. It is wholly credible, that, in pre- 
paring them for their future work, He should often have spoken 
of the way in which it should be conducted, and of the oppo- 
sition and perils which they would meet. But it is apparent 
upon its face that their commission had a far larger scope than 
of their first temporary work under it.’ It had prospective 
reference to their larger work after the Lord’s ascension, and 
also in some measure to all the missionary work of the Church 
till His return. Some directions in it are plainly temporary, as 
those not to visit the heathen or Samaritans, and to make no 
provision of money or clothing. The prediction of persecutions 
and scourgings, on the other hand, had at this time no fulfill- 
ment. It is on this ground that some make a division of its 
contents, applying verses 5 to 15 to this first mission (compare 
Mark vi. 8-12, Luke ix. 1-6), and the remainder to their future 
labors. It is said by Alexander, that ‘the charge relating to 
the first mission ends with verse 15, and with verse 16 begins 
a more general and prospective charge relating to their subse- 
quent Apostolic labors.” 


1 So Jones, Notes on Scripture, 100; Stier, ii. 2; Eders., i. 640. 


—— 


Part IV.] THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE. 311 


With the correctness of this or other divisions we are not 
here concerned; what is of importance to us is the light which 
this commission casts upon the relations of the people to the 
Lord. If it was all spoken at this time, it was a plain declara- 
tion to the Twelve that they, going out in His name, would 
meet not merely a temporary outburst of hostility, but the per- 
sistent and bitter enmity of those to whom they should go: “Ye 
shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake.” Yet they would 
find some who would receive them, some “sons of peace.” 
That they did not understand the large significance of the Lord’s 
words is clear, for their conception of the future was very con- 
fused, and the thought of a permanent separation from Him had 
not yet entered their minds. His declarations respecting their 
persecutions must have been in striking contrast to the opinions 
the Apostles were yet cherishing respecting the reign of the 
Messiah, and His general reception by the people. By speaking 
of their sufferings and persecutions, He announced, by implica- 
tion, His own sufferings and rejection. 

There are two aspects in which this mission of the Twelve 
may be regarded: First, as that of heralds proclaiming wherever 
they went that the Kingdom of God is at hand. It has been 
questioned whether the Lord’s purpose in sending them was to 
draw attention to Himself, proclaiming by them that the Mes- 
siah had come and was among them, or to announce the approach 
of the Messianic kingdom, to call to repentance, and to confirm 
their message by their miracles. But we can scarce doubt that 
their commission was rather that of heralds than of preachers. 
They could not themselves at this time have understood sufi- 
ciently the nature of the kingdom they proclaimed to be able 
to teach others. Plumptre 7 loco, holds that they were to go 
as heralds: “The two envoys of the kingdom were to enter into 
a town or village, and there standing in the gate, to announce 
that the kingdom had come near, and when this had drawn 
crowds to listen, to call men to repentance, without which they 
could not enter it.” But, as said by Pressensé, it is most proba- 
ble that their mission did not ‘go beyond a general announce- 
ment that the Messiah had appeared.” It was not that they 
should be teachers of the people, but that they should bring 
them to their Lord that He might teach them. 


312 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


Secondly, as that of men endowed with miraculous powers, 
whose works were not less important than their message (Matt. x. 
7, 8). Their endowment with such powers was a thing unknown’ 
in Jewish history, and this in two respects — (a) that no limitation 
was put on their exercise, (b) that they were conferred by a Man 
upon them that, as one body, they might bear witness to Him. 
As in the case of the Lord, the healings wrought by the Twelve 
were not of certain individuals alone who had faith, but were 
general. As itis said of Him, that He went “round about the 
villages teaching,” “ entering into all the synagogues, and healing 
every sickness and every disease among the people,” so their 
commission was “to cast out unclean spirits, and to heal all man- 
ner of sickness, and all manner of disease.” The end of both 
was the same—to show that the kingdom of God is present in 
the person of the King. It was bringing that kingdom through 
these works of deliverance into sharpest contrast with the bond- 
age of soul and body under the rule of eyil spirits. Thus 
their works, even more impressively than their words, testified 
that the day of redemption and the Redeemer were at hand. 

The fact that they possessed such powers as the heralds 
of Jesus must have led many to ask, Is not He who sent them 
forth, and who not only Himself heals all, but is able to give 
like power to others, the Messiah? No prophet in the past had 
ever been able to do this, not even Moses. Is not He who does 
this a King, and even more than a King? 

These miraculous endowments were doubtless confined to 
this mission. Up to this time there is no mention that the 
Twelve had wrought any miracles, nor is it recorded that they 
did so after they rejoined the Lord. (See however Matt. xxi. 
19, 20, as showing that the power to work miracles was not ab- 
solutely withdrawn, but was dependent on their faith.) 

That Jesus continued His own personal labors during the 
absence of the Twelve, appears from Matthew (xi 1), that 
“when He had made an end of commanding His Twelve disci- 
ples, He departed thence to teach and preach in their cities.” 
In these journeyings He was probably accompanied by other 
disciples, doubtless by some of those who were afterward chosen 
among the seventy (Luke x. 1), and perhaps also by the women 


Part IV.] DEATH OF THE BAPTIST. 313 


who had before been with Him. If, as is probable, He had 
given direction to the Twelve to rejoin Him at Capernaum at 
some fixed time, He would now so direct His own course as to 
meet them there. 

It was during the mission of the Twelve that the death of 
John the Baptist occurred. The news of it seems to have been 
communicated to Jesus by John's disciples (Matt. xiv. 12), but 
this must have been some days at least after the event. The 
date of his death has been already discussed (Chronological 
Essay, 46 ff.), and the conclusion reached that it was in the latter 
part of March or the beginning of April, 782. 

From Mark vi. 13, 14, and Luke ix. 6, 7, it appears that it 
was not till after the death of John that Herod heard of Jesus. 
But how could he have been so long active in one of Herod’s 
provinces, followed by great multitudes, performing daily the 
most wonderful works, and His residence only a very few miles 
from Sepphoris, where the king kept his court, and yet His fame 
never reach the royal ears? Tiberias was built about 779, but 
whether Herod’s palace was completed and he resided there at 
this time, we do not know. The most ready explanation would 
be, that during His ministry Herod had been absent from 
_ Galilee on a visit at Rome, whither he went about this time; or 

had been engaged in hostilities with Aretas, and thus remained 
in good measure ignorant of what was taking place.’ There is 
much probability in this supposition of Herod’s absence, but de- 
cisive proof is wanting. If, however, he was in Galilee during 
this period, his ignorance of Jesus finds a sufficient explanation 
in his own personal character. We know from Josephus that 
he was a lover of ease and pleasure, and a man who occupied 
himself more in erecting fine buildings than in public affairs. 
Like all the Herodian family, he treated the Jewish religion 
with respect as a matter of policy, but did not interfere with 
ecclesiastical matters, except he saw movements dangerous to the 
public peace. The disputes of contending sects, or the theolog- 
ical discussions of the Rabbins, had no attractions for him; and, 
provided the Jews were orderly and peaceful, he cared not to 


1 Greswell, iii. 428; Edersheim, i. 654, says that he was during the Galilean minis- 
try in his dominions east of the Jordan, at Julias or Machaerus 


14 


314 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


interfere in their religious quarrels. John’s ministry continued 
a considerable period without any interruption on his part; and 
when he at last imprisoned him, it was on personal, not on 
political or religious, grounds. Hence, we can understand how 
Jesus might prosecute His work in Galilee in the vicinity of 
Herod, without the latter learning anything definite respecting 
it, or having his attention specially directed to His character or 
designs. As a new religious teacher, the founder of a new sect, 
an opponent of the Pharisees and scribes, the matter was unim- 
portant, and beneath the royal notice. Unless the public tran- 
quility was actually disturbed or seriously threatened, Herod, 
like Gallio, cared for none of these things. 

During the imprisonment of the Baptist, Herod seems to 
have had several interviews with him, and learned to appreciate 
his bold and fearless honesty (Mark vi. 20). He did many 
things that John recommended, and heard him gladly. Hence, 
when, in his drunken revelry, he had given up the Baptist to the 
malice of Herodias, he was troubled in conscience; and his ears 
were open to any tidings that had connection with the departed 
prophet. It was a short time before this that Jesus had sent 
out the Twelve, astep which would naturally turn public attention 
to Him, and which might easily be misinterpreted. It would 


arouse His watchful enemies to action, for it apparently indi- 


cated a purpose to disseminate His doctrine more widely, and to 
make diseiples in larger numbers. It might thus easily, through 
them, reach the ears of Herod, who would be led to inquire more 
particularly into the character and works of the new Rabbi. 
But his informants gave him different answers (Mark vi. 14, 15; 
Luke ix. 7, 8). Some said that He was Elias; others, that He 
was a prophet, or as one of the prophets; and others still, igno- 
rant of His earlier work, said that He was John the Baptist 
risen from the dead. This last account, to the uneasy and super- 
stitious mind of Herod, was most credible, and explained how 
He wrought such mighty works as were ascribed to Him. Re- 
turned to life, he could do what could be done by no one in mor- 
tal flesh (Matt. xiv. 2; Mark vi. 14). All this awakened in 
Herod a lively desire to see Jesus, but no intimation is given us 
that he designed to arrest Him or to hinder Him in His work. 


— 


Es 


Part IV.] HEROD’S IGNORANCE OF JESUS. 315 


Thus far the Messianic claims of the Lord had been so presented, 
that there was nothing in His teachings or actions to awaken 
Herod’s jealousy of Him as a claimant of the throne. At no < 
period does the king seem to have looked upon Him with any 
dislike or fear as a political leader. The threatenings of the 
Pharisees ata later period, that Herod would kill Him (Luke 
xiii. 31), seem to have been a device of their own to frighten 
Him from His labors. 

According to Josephus,’ John was put to death at Machaerus, 
a fortress at the southern extremity of Pera on the borders of 
Arabia.? It has been questioned whether Herod would have 
made a birthday feast at the southern extremity of his domin- 
ions, where it would be difficult for the courtiers and noblemen 
of his court to attend. Still, if we remember that the Jews 
generally were in the habit of going up from the most remote 
parts of the land to Jerusalem once or more every year to the 
feasts, the journey of a few courtiers to Machaerus will not 
seem strange. Besides, if Herod was detained there through 
a war, or other cause, the feast must follow his pleasure; and 
‘f Machaerus was not convenient to his guests from Galilee, it 
was more convenient to those from Perza. 

Some, however, have supposed that the feast did not take 
place at Machaerus, although John was beheaded there, but at 
Tiberias, or at Julias. (For Machaerus: Meyer, Lewin, Gams, 
Alford, and most; for Tiberias: Grotius, Lightfoot; for Livias 
or Julias: Wieseler, Lange.) But although it is possible that the 
head of the Baptist should have been taken from Machaerus to 
Tiberias before the feast ended, yet the obvious interpretation of 
the narrative is, that he was beheaded the same night in which 
the daughter of Herodias danced before the king, or at least, 
that no long interval elapsed. If the feast was not at Machae- 
Tus, where most place it, it was most probably at Julias,? which 
was at no great distance, and where Herod had a summer palace. 


1 Antiq., xviii. 5. 2. 

2 The question respecting the possession of this fortress at this time, whether it was 
held by Herod or by Aretas, was considered in the inquiry as to the time of the Bap- 
tist’s imprisonment. That he was beheaded there is generally accepted. 

8 The modern Beit-Haran. See Tristram, B. P., 348. 





PART V. 


FROM THE DEATH OF THE BAPTIST TO THE FINAL DEPARTURE 
FROM GALILEE, OR FROM APRIL TO NOVEMBER, 782. A. D. 29. 


The Lord’s Ministry in Galilee from the Death of the 
Baptist till tts Close. 


The connection between the imprisonment of the Baptist and 
the commencement of the Lord’s ministry in Galilee has been 
already considered. The same moral causes that determined 
this connection, make the death of the Baptist important in its 
influence upon the subsequent character of that ministry. It 
appears from the notices of the Evangelists that when this event 
occurred, the popularity of Jesus, if we may use this word, was 
at its height in Galilee. Great multitudes followed Him wherever 
He went, and so thronged Him that He had no leisure even to eat. 
From every part of the land they came to listen to His teachings 
and to be healed. Nor may we ascribe this concourse merely to 
curiosity and selfishness. These doubtless ruled in many; but 
that there was also at this period a large measure of faith in 
Him as one sent from God, appears from the fact that 
“whithersoever He entered, into villages, or cities, or country, 
they laid the sick in the streets, and besought Him that they 
might touch if it were but the border of His garment; and as 
many as touched it were made whole.” As His healing power 
seems now to have been manifested in its greatest activity, so 
now He performed one of the most stupendous of His miracles, 
the feeding of the five thousand. At no period of His ministry 
did He stand in such high reputation with the people at large as 
a Teacher and Prophet; and to the human eye, His labors 
seemed about to be crowned with great results. 

It was at this stage of His ministry that He heard of the 
Baptist’s death. To His clear-seeing eye the fate of His fore- 
runner was prophetic of His own. As the Jews “had done unto 

(317) 


318 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part V. 


the Baptist whatsoever they listed, as it was written of Him,” so He 
knew that He also “ must suffer many things and beset at naught ” 
(Mark ix. 12, 13). However well disposed toward Him indi- 
viduals among the people might be, there was no longer hope 
that the nation, as such, would receive Him. The more clearly 
He revealed His Messianic character in its higher features, the 
more all the worldly minded, the unspiritual, turned away from 
Him. His popularity rested upon no solid or permanent basis, 
as there was no recognition of His true mission, and He was 
deemed merely the equal of John or Elijah. He was in a posi- 
tion in which He must either fulfill their Messianic expectations, 
and begin the struggle for political freedom, or meet the re- 
action which His refusal would inevitably bring. From this 
time, therefore, He begins to act as in view of His approaching 
death. More and more He withdraws Himself from the crowds 
that follow Him, and devotes Himself to the instruction of His 
disciples. It is not now so much His purpose to gather new ad- 
herents, as to teach those already believing on Him the great 
mysteries of His Person and work. As yet the knowledge 
even of the Twelve was very imperfect; and He could not be 
personally separated from them till He had taught them of His 
divine origin; and as subsequent to this, of His death, resurrec- 
tion, ascension, and of His coming again in glory. 

As the Lord seemed thus to shun public observation, it was 
natural that the popular favor which had followed Him should 
suffer at least a temporary diminution; and that this should 
have been the signal for increased activity on the part of His 
enemies. As He made no distinct assertion of His Messianic 
claims before the people at large, and so far from assuming 
royal dignity, seemed rather to take the position of a mere 
Rabbi, the fickle multitude was the more easily affected by the 
accusations and invectives of His foes. His teachings also seem 
to have gradually assumed a more mysterious and even repellent 
character. He speaks of Himself as “the bread of life”; of the 
necessity of “eating His flesh and drinking His blood”; lan- 
guage so incomprehensible and so offensive, that many, even of 
His disciples, forsook Him. To the Scribes and Pharisees He 
addresses reproaches of unwonted severity. Up to this time He 





Part V.] LATER MINISTRY IN GALILEE, 319 


had been engaged in gathcring disciples, and for their sake He 
would not willingly array against Himself those whom all the 
people had been taught to honor as their ecclesiastical rulers and 
teachers. Such open hostility on their part, and a corresponding 
severity of rebuke on His, would have been a stumbling-block to 
the tender conscience and half-enlightened mind. But the time 
is come that the line of separation must be clearly drawn, and 
the truth respecting Himself and His enemies be openly spoken; 
and His disciples learn that to follow Him involves the fierce 
and persistent enmity of their spiritual rulers and guides — an 
enmity which should follow them even after His own death. 

That which specially characterizes the second part of the 
Lord’s ministry in Galilee, or that from the death of the Baptist 
onward, we thus find to be a gradual withdrawal of Himself 
from the multitude and from public labors, and the devotion of 
Himself to the instruction of His disciples. When by these in- 
structions He has prepared them to understand His Divine Son- 
ship, and what should befall Him at Jerusalem, His Galilean 
ministry comes to its end. 


Outline of the second part of the Galilean ministry : 


fifth Sojourn in Capernaum. 


Hearing of the death of the Baptist, the Lord returns to 
Capernaum. No event is narrated as having occurred during 
this sojourn. Probably it was very brief—a mere passage 
through the city. 

FIFTH CIRCUIT. 


He crosses the sea with the Twelve to seek retirement, but 
the multitude immediately follow Him. He feeds the 5,000, 
and sending away the apostles by ship He rejoins them the next 
morning, walking on the sea. Landing on the plain of Gennes- 
aret, He heals the sick, and they return to Capernaum. 


Sixth Sojourn in Capernaum. 


He discourses in the synagogue on the bread of life. His 
discourse causes many of His disciples to forsake Him. He 
addresses the Pharisees, and heals the sick. 


320 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part V. 


SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

He goes to the coasts of Tyre and Sidon to find retirement. 
Here He heals the daughter of the Syro-Phenician woman. 
Crossing the northern part of the Jordan, He goes to Decapolis 
He heals a deaf man, and feeds the 4,000, and returns by Dal- 
manutha to Capernaum. 


Seventh Sojourn in Capernaum. 
He is tempted by the Pharisees, who seek a sign. 


SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 


He goes to Bethsaida, and there heals a blind man. He 
returns to Capernaum, and there meets His brethren, who wish 
Him to go up to the Feast of Tabernacles, and show Himself 
openly at Jerusalem. 


Eighth Sojourn at Capernaum. 

He remains at Capernaum till the feast had begun, and then 
goes up privately to Jerusalem, and teaches. A woman taken 
in adultery is then brought before Him; He heals a blind man; 
and after a time returns to Capernaum. 


EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 


He leaves Capernaum and goes to Caesarea Philippi. The con- 
fession of Peter, and the Transfiguration. He heals the lunatic 
child, and returns to Capernaum. 


Ninth Sojourn at Capernaum. 


He pays the tribute money. 


Final Departure from Capernaum and Galilee. 


Apri, 782. A. D. 29. 


After the return of the Twelve to Him at Capernaum, Mark yi 31-44, 
Jesus prepares to go with them across the sea to find se- Luke ix. 10-17. 
clusion and rest. They desire to go privately, but the JOHN yi. 1-4. 
multitudes seeing them departing by ship, follow them Marv. xiy. 13-14. 
on foot along the shore, and come to the place where He 
had gone. He heals theirsick, and the same evening feeds 
5,000 men, beside women and children. Immediately Marv. xiy. 15-21. 





Part V.] SECOND CROSSING THE SEA. 321 


after, He compels the disciples to return in the ship to JouN vi. 5-14. 
Capernaum, and remains to dismiss the people. Hespends Mark vi. 45-53. 
the night alone, and early in the morning walks upon the JOHN vi. 15-21. 
sea to rejoin the disciples who have been driven from their 

course by the wind, and are unable to make the land. 

Having rescued Peter, who attempts to walk upon the Mart. xiv. 22-34, 
water to meet Him, they both enter the boat, and im- 

mediately come to the shore in the land of Gennesaret. 

Tt is not said where Jesus was when the disciples of John 
came to Him to announce their master’s death (Matt. xiv. 12), 
but it was natural that they should seek Him at Capernaum. 
About the same time the Twelve, who had been absent on their 
mission, rejoined Him. Perhaps their return at this juncture 
may have been determined by the tidings of the death of the 
Baptist, which must very soon have become widely and gener- 
ally known. As usual whenever Jesus after one of His circuits 
returned to Capernaum, the people of the surrounding cities and 
villages flocked to see Him, bringing with them their sick. 
“Many were coming and going, and they had no leisure so 
much as to eat” (Mark vi. 31). Jesus therefore determined to 
cross the sea, and find repose in the uninhabited hills upon the 
eastern shore. Some attribute this departure to fear of Herod’s 
hostility, and this has some countenance in the language of 
Matt. xiv. 13. Caspari says: “The Lord, to avoid the tyrant, 
repaired to the eastern part of the lake.” But a more careful 
examination shows us that this could not have been His mo- 
tive. Luke (ix. 9) mentions that Herod “desired to see Him,” 
but this seems to have been rather from curiosity than from any 
purpose to arrest Him. Mark gives the Lord’s own words to 
the Apostles, ‘Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place, and 
rest awhile”; adding the explanatory remark that ‘they had no 
leisure so much as to eat.” He desired to separate the Apostles 
from the multitude; and to give them after their labors a little 
period of repose, such as was not possible for them to obtain at 
Capernaum. Perhaps, also, He Himself desired a few hours for 
solitary communion with God for the refreshment of His own 
spirit, agitated by the death of John, whom He mourned as a 
faithful friend; and in whose untimely and violent end He saw 
the sign and foreshadowing of His own approaching death. 

That ne departure across the sea was not through fear of 


322 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part V. 


personal violence of Herod, appears also from the fact that Jesus 
the next day returned, landing publicly upon the shore of 
Gennesaret; and thence attended by crowds went to Caper- 
naum, where He taught openly in the synagogue (Mark yi. 53- 
55; John vi. 22-59). And after this, as before, He continued 
to make Capernaum His abode, and was not molested by Herod. 
Norton suggests that the death of John had produced a sudden 
excitement among the people; and that public attention began 
to be turned to Jesus as one who might avenge his murder, and 
become Himself their king; and that it was to escape the people 
rather than Herod, that He crossed the sea. But the desire to 
make Him king (John vi. 15), seems to have been rather the 
effect of the miracle He wrought than of any popular indig- 
nation because of John’s death. 


The place to which the Lord directed His course across the sea, 
was ‘‘a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida” (Luke 
ix. 10). The position of this city has been already discussed. 
According to the conclusion then reached, it was situated just at the 
entrance of the Jordan into the sea, and upon both banks of the 
stream. Upon the east side lies the rich level plain of Butaiha 
(Batihah), a plain a little larger than Gennesaret, forming a triangle, 
of which the eastern mountains make one side, and the river bank 
and the lakeshore the two other. This plain, with its bordering hills, 
probably belonged to Bethsaida. It was at the southeastern angle 
of this plain, where the hills come down close to the shore, that 
Thomson (ii. 29) places the site of the feeding of the five thousand. 
“‘From the four narratives of this stupendous miracle, we gather, 1st, 
that the place belonged to Bethsaida; 2d, that it was a desert place; 
3d, that it was near the shore of the lake, for they came to it by 
boats; 4th, that there was a mountain close at hand; 5th, that it was 
a smooth, grassy spot, capable of seating many thousand people. 
Now all these requisites are found in this exact locality, and nowhere 
else, so far as I can discover. This Butaiha belonged to Bethsaida. 
At this extreme southeast corner of it, the mountain shuts down 
upon the lake, bleak and barren. It was, doubtless, desert then as 
now, for it is not capable of cultivation. In this little cove the ships 
(boats) were anchored. On this beautiful sward, at the base of the 
rocky hill, the people were seated.” 

We see no reason to doubt that Thomson has rightly fixed upon 
the site of the miracle. A generally received tradition placed it 





Part V.] THE MULTITUDES FOLLOW HIM. 323 


upon the west side of the lake, and near to Tiberias; but there was 
no agreement as to the exact spot. The earliest tradition, going 
back to the fourth century, placed it, according to Robinson (ii. 372), 
“Con the broad ridge about an hour southeast of the Mount of the 
Beatitudes,” where are four or five blocks of black stone called by the 
Arabs ‘‘stones of the Christians,” and by the Latins, mensa Christi, 
“table of Christ.” A later tradition— not older, according to 
Robinson, than the twelfth century — put it on the mountain where 
the Lord’s Sermon was delivered. As early as 700 A. D. Arculf was 
shown here ‘‘a grassy and level plain which had never been ploughed 
since that event.” Col. Wilson (Bib. Ed., iii. 186) thinks it may 
have been near Ain Baridah, which is between Tiberias and Magdala.' 

There is some question-as to the right reading. In the A. V., 
Luke ix. 10, it reads: ‘‘ And He took them, and went aside privately 
into a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida;” in R. 
y., ‘‘And He took them, and withdrew apart to a city called 
Bethsaida.” (So Tisch., W. and H., Meyer; others, as Godet: “ into 
a desert place called Bethsaida”; others, accepting the Sinaitic read- 
ing: “into a desert place.” Matthew says (xiv. 13, R. V.), ‘‘He 
withdrew in a boat to a desert place apart.” Luke does not mention 
any crossing of the lake, probably because the mention of Bethsaida 
sufficiently indicated that it was upon the east side. In John (vi. 
23) there has been found an intimation that the place of this miracle 
was near Tiberias: ‘‘Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias 
nigh unto the place where they did eat bread” —(Vul., a Tiberiade 
juata locum ubi manducaverant panem.) This has been understood as 
meaning that Tiberias was nigh unto the place. It is said by a Lap- 
ide: Hine patet locum. . . . fuisse juxta Tiberiadem. In his note 
on Matt. xiv. 13, he repeats this, and puts the place between Tiberias 
and Bethsaida, and of course, on the west side. 

It is to be kept in mind that the Lord sought ‘‘a desert” or ‘‘ un- 
inhabited ” place, and this place stood in some local relation to the 
city Bethsaida, probably as a part of its territory, or at least under 
its jurisdiction. Now, if we put the place of the feeding on the 
western side of the lake, somewhere between Tiberias and Tell Hum, 
we must put Bethsaida not far from it; but if, as the narratives 
show, the feeding of the people was on the east side, we must put 
it in the territory of Bethsaida Julias. The statement of John (vi. 
23) is to the effect that boats from Tiberias on the west side came to 
some point on the east side near the place of the miracle. 


1 That it was on the west side is defended by Thrupp, Journal of Class. and Sac. 
Philology, ii. 290. So DeSaulcy. 


324 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part V. 


There is a slight seeming discrepancy in the statements of 
Matthew and Mark respecting the meeting of Jesus with the 
multitude that followed Him. Matthew relates that “Jesus 
went forth and saw a great multitude, and was moved with com- 
passion,” etc., implying that He had already reached the place 
He sought ere the crowds came. Mark relates that the crowds 
‘“‘outwent them, and came together unto Him. And Jesus, 
when He came out,” 7. e., from the ship, ‘‘saw much people, and 
was moved with compassion toward them,” etc. Whether any 
discrepancy exists depends upon the meaning of “ went forth,” 
éeA9Ov, in Matthew. Meyer refers it to His coming forth 
from His place of retirement.’ In his note on Mark (vi. 34), 
Alford remarks: ‘There is nothing in Matthew to imply that He 
had reached His place of solitude before the multitudes came 
up.” There seems to be no good reason why the “ went forth” 
in Matthew, should be differently understood from the “came 
out” of Mark; the word in both cases being the same, and in 
both may refer to His coming out of the ship. Lichtenstein 
reconciles the discrepancy by supposing that a few came before 
Jesus reached the shore, but unwilling to intrude upon Him 
waited till the others came, so that He had a little interval of 
retirement ere He went forth to heal the sick and teach. 

Some have supposed that John (vi. 4) mentions the fact that 
“the Passover was nigh,” to explain why so great a company 
should have gathered to Him of men, women, and children. 
They were composed, at least in part, of those that were journey- 
ing toward Jerusalem to keep the feast.? Alexander, on the 
other hand, objects that, from the fact that they had nothing to 
eat, they could scarcely be a caravan of pilgrims, but were prob- 
ably just come from their own homes. This is confirmed by 
the statement in verse second, giving the reason why they fol- 
lowed Him, because of the healing of the sick. It would seem 
that the people were mostly from Capernaum, Bethsaida, and the 
towns adjacent. (See Mark vi. 33.) 

It was, as has already been shown, the Lord’s desire to go 
privately with the Apostles across the sea, and thus escape the 


1 So Norton, Bengel, Trench. 
2 So Trench, Mir,, 214; Bengel, Meyer, Edersheim, Westcott. Alford doubts, 


Part Ve] FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND. 325 


multitudes; but as His preparations to depart were necessarily 
made in public, and the departure itself was in sight of all, He 
could not prevent them from following Him. It strikingly 
marks the strong hold He now had upon the people at large, 
that so great a number should follow Him so far. That they 
should be able to keep pace with those in the boat, will not 
appear strange if we remember the relative positions of Caper- 
naum and Bethsaida, as already defined. From the former 
city, which we identify with Tell Hum, to the entrance of the 
Jordan, where we place Bethsaida, according to Robinson, is 
one hour and five minutes, or about two and a half geographical 
miles. The distance from the entrance of the Jordan along the 
eastern shore to the point where the mountains approach the 
lake, is also about an hour. The whole distance, then, which 
the people from Capernaum had to travel, was not more than 
six or eight miles; and from the conformation of the coast, 
could be almost as rapidly passed by those on the shore as by 
those in the boat. If the place where they were fed was two or 
three miles up the river on the east bank, the distance would be 
a little less. Edersheim puts it some three or four miles; Tris- 
tram, some two miles. In this case, it wasa considerable distance 
from the lake shore. Greswell,’ who puts this Bethsaida at the 
southeastern angle of the lake, supposes that Jesus set out from 
Capernaum in the evening, and landed at Bethsaida in the 
morning; and that the people, who ran before on foot, travelled 
all night, a distance of about sixteen Roman miles. This needs 
no refutation. 

The presence of this multitude that had followed Him so far, 
awakened the Lord’s compassion; and receiving them, He 
“spake unto them of the kingdom of God, and healed them 
that had need of healing” (Luke ix.11). From John’s lan- 
guage (vi. 5), it would seem that the Lord first addressed Philip 
with the inquiry, “‘Whence shall we buy bread that these may 
eat?” According to the Synoptists, it was the disciples who 
proposed to Him that He should send them away that they 
might buy themselves victuals. But none of the Evangelists 
narrate all the conversation that passed between Jesus and the 


1 ii, 344, note, 


326 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part V. 


disciples. Probably the disciples first proposed to send the peo- 
ple away to get food, and He replies, ‘Give ye them to eat ” 
(Mark vi. 35-37). This leads to a general conversation in which 
He specially addresses Philip, and asks where bread could be 
bought. He then directs them to make inquiry how many 
loaves they had. After making inquiry, Andrew reports that 
there were five barley loaves and two small fishes, and hereupon 
He proceeds to feed the multitude. As residents of Bethsaida, 
Philip and Andrew would naturally know better than the other 
Apostles how food could be procured in that region. 

The effect of this miracle upon the minds of those present 
was very great. So mighty and wonderful an exhibition of 
power, reminding them, perhaps, of the feeding of their fathers 
in the wilderness by Moses, led them to say, “ This is of a truth 
that prophet that should come into the world.” We can scarce 
doubt from the context that they meant the Messiah, for so 
great was their enthusiasm that they proposed among themselves 
to take Him by force and make Him king (John vi. 14, 15). It 
is said by Pressensé: ‘‘The multitudes are ravished, enthusiastic; 
now, indeed, they believe that they have found the Messiah after 
their own heart.” Thus, the effect of the miracle was to confirm 
them in their false Messianic hopes, for they interpreted it as a 
sign and pledge of the highest temporal prosperity under His 
rule, who could not only heal the sick of all their diseases, but 
feed five thousand men with five loaves of barley bread. Hence, 
He must immediately dismiss them. It appears from Matthew 
and Mark that He sent away the disciples first, perhaps that the 
excitement of the multitude might not seize upon them. That 
they were unwilling to leave Him, and that He was obliged to 
“constrain” them to depart, is not strange, if we remember 
that they knew no way by which He could rejoin them but by a 
long walk along the shore; and this in the solitude and darkness 
of the night, for it was evening when they left the place. (Com- 
pare Matt. xiv. 15, 23, where both evenings, the early and 
late, are distinguished.) Aside from their reluctance to leave 
Him alone at such an hour, there may also have been fear upon 
their own part of crossing the lake in the night, remembering 
their great peril from which He had a little while before deliv- 


ee 


Part V.] JESUS JOINS HIS DISCIPLES UPON THE SEA. 327 


ered them (Matt. viii. 24) and perhaps also, seeing signs of an 
approaching storm. 

After His disciples had departed, the Lord proceeded to dis- 
miss the multitude, perhaps now more willing to leave Him that 
they saw His special attendants had gone. So soon as all had 
left Him, He went up into the mountain alone to pray —the 
second instance mentioned of a night so spent; the first being 
the night prior to the choice of Apostles (Luke vi. 12, 13), and 
both marking important points in His life. 

The details of the voyage of the disciples in their topograph- 
ical bearings, have been already considered (p. 233), and need 
not be re-stated here. We assume that the place where the peo- 
ple were fed was the southern angle of the plain of Butaiha, 
where the mountains meet the lake. From this point the Apos- 
tles, to reach Capernaum, would pass near Bethsaida at the 
mouth of the Jordan; and as Jesus proceeding along the shore 
must necessarily pass through it, we find no difficulty in sup- 
posing that they directed their course toward it with the design 
of stopping there, and taking Him with them into the boat when 
He should arrive. This is plainly intimated by Mark vi. 45,’ 
and is wholly consistent with John vi. 17. This latter passage 
is thus translated by Alford: “They were making for the other 
side of the sea in the direction of Capernaum.” He adds: “It 
would appear as if the disciples were lingering along shore, 
with the expectation of taking in Jesus; but night had fallen 
and He had not yet come to them, and the sea began to be 
stormy.” ‘The great wind that blew” and the tossing waves 
made all their efforts to reach Bethsaida useless. Nor could 
they even make Capernaum. In spite of all their endeavors, 
they were driven out into the middle of the lake and southerly, 
down opposite the plain of Gennesaret. 

Thomson (ii. 32), referring to this night voyage of the disci- 
ples, says: “My experience in this region enables me to sympa- 
thize with the disciples in their long night’s contest with the 


1 See Wieseler, 274, note 1; Newcome, 263. ‘‘ They were to make Bethsaida in 
their passage, at which place it was understood that Jesus was to meet them by land, 
there toembark with them.” -So Eders., i. 690; Rob., iii.358: ‘* The apparent discrepancy 
between Mark and John disappears at once, if Bethsaida lay near to Capernaum, and if 
the disciples intended first to touch at the former place before landing at the latter.” 


328 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part V. 


wind. I spent a night in that Wady Shukaiyif, some three 
miles up it, to the left of us. The sun had scarcely set, when 
the wind began to rush down toward the lake, and it continued 
all night long with constantly increasing violence, so that when 
we reached the shore next morning, the face of the lake was like 
a huge boiling caldron. The wind howled down every wady, 
from the northeast and east, with such fury that no efforts of 
rowers could have brought a boat to shore at any point along 
that coast. In a wind like that, the disciples must have been 
driven quite across to Gennesaret, as we know they were. We 
subsequently pitched our tents at the shore, and remained for 
three days and nights exposed to this tremendous wind. No 
wonder the disciples toiled and rowed hard all that night, and 
how natural their amazement and terror at the sight of Jesus 
walking on the waves. The whole lake, as we had it, was lashed 
into fury; the waves repeatedly rolled up to our tent door, 
tumbling on the ropes with such violence as to carry away the 
tent pins.” The width of the sea opposite the plain of Gen- 
nesaret is about six miles, and the disciples, who “had rowed 
about five and twenty or thirty furlongs” when Jesus met them, 
were thus something more than half the way over. As this 
was ‘‘about the fourth watch of the night” (Mark vi. 48), or 
from 3-6 a. M., the disciples must have been struggling against 
the wind and waves some eight or ten hours. 

The incident respecting Peter’s attempt to walk on the water 
to meet Jesus is mentioned only by Matthew. That after he 
had been rescued they entered the ship, is expressly said: “ And 
when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased ” (Matt. xiv. 
32). In like manner Mark (vi. 51): “And He went up unto 
them into the ship; and the wind ceased.” But with this John’s 
narrative has been thought by some to be in contradiction (vi. 
21): “Then they willingly received Him into the ship, 70e/o0v 
ovv AaBeiv adtov cic TO TAoiov; and immediately the ship was 
at the land whither they went” (R. V., “They were willing 
therefore to receive Him into the boat”). It is said that the 
disciples willed or desired to take Him into the ship with them, 
but did not, because the ship immediately came to the shore.' 


1 So Meyer, in foco; Bleek, Beitriige, 28, 























Part V.| JESUS IN THE LAND OF GENNESARET. 329 


Tholuck, however, defends the translation of Beza, “they 
received Him with willingness,” which is the same as our 
English version.’ ‘John mentions the will only, assuming that 
every reader would understand that the will was carried into 
effect” (M. and M). Some deny that the ship came to the shore 
by miracle, but suppose that it came rapidly in comparison with 
she earlier part of the voyage, the wind having subsided and the 
3ea become smooth.? On the other hand, Luthardt and most 
rightly regard it as supernatural. 


ApriL, 782. A.D. 29. 


The pecple of Gennesaret, so soon as they know that Marv. xiv. 34-36. 
Jesus has landed upon their coasts, bring unto Him their 
sick, who are healed by only touching the hem of His Mark yi. 53-56. 
garment. Those whom He had fed, and who had spent JOHN yi. 22-59. 
the night upon the eastern shore, now returning seek 
Him at Capernaum, whither He goes. In answer to their 
question how He came over the sea, He discourses to 
them concerning the bread of life. His words are so 
offensive to many of His disciples that they henceforth JoHN vi. 60-66. 
forsake Him. The Twelve continue with Him, but He Jouwn vi. 67-71. 
declares that one of them is a devil. 

The language of Matthew and of Mark is so express in connect- 
ing these miracles of healing with the return after the feeding 
of the five thousand, that there is no room for doubt that they 
then took place. It is not, however, necessary to regard their 
statements as descriptive of an activity confined to that one day, 
but rather as embracing the whole period after His return till He 
again departed. All the accounts of this period indicate that 
He had now come to the culminating point of His labors. 
Never was His popularity so great, and never His mighty 
power so marvellously displayed. He could go nowhere, into 
country, or village, or city, that they did not bring the sick into 
the streets, that they might at least touch the hem of His gar- 
ment; “and as many as touched were made perfectly whole.” 
The fact that the men of Gennesaret “sent out into all that 
country round about and brought unto Him all that were 
diseased ” (Matt. xiv. 35), indicates their great confidence in His 


1 Alford; see Winer, Gram., 363; Trench, Mir., 228, note; Eders., i. 692; Godet, ta 
loco. 2 Alford, Tholuck. 


330 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part V. 


ability and willingness to heal all that should be brought to 
Him; and perhaps also their expectation that, according to His 
custom, He would soon depart to other fields of labor. 

Of those who had been present among the five thousand, 
some, and probably many, remained in the villages and towns 
on the eastern and northern shores during the night. The 
statement of John (vi. 22-25), though not without grammatical 
difficulties, is clear as to its general meaning. The multitude 
saw that the disciples had gone in the boat in which they came, 
and that the Lord was not with them, and naturally inferred 
that He was still somewhere in the neighborhood, and that the 
disciples would return the next morning to rejoin Him; but 
when in the morning they saw boats come over from Tiberias, 
and that the disciples were not in them, and that Jesus was not 
to be found, they took the same boats, and went to Capernaum 
to find Him. These boats may have been sent over by the 
boatmen from Tiberias for passengers, the gathering of the 
crowd on the eastern shore being now known. As He had 
landed very early upon the plain of Gennesaret, for it was about 
the fourth watch when He met the disciples, He had probably, 
ere their arrival, reached the city. The discourse concerning 
the bread of life was spoken in the synagogue at Capernaum 
(John vi. 59), and most probably upon the Sabbath. Still, no 
certain inference can be drawn from this mention of the 
synagogue, as it was used for teaching upon other days than the 
Sabbath.’ According to Lightfoot, it may have been on a 
Monday or Thursday. Edersheim (ii. 4), assuming that this 
was a Sabbath and reckoning backward, gives the following 
order of events: Jesus left Capernaum to go across the lake on 
a Thursday, and on that evening was the feeding of the five 
thousand, and other events; on Friday those remaining on the 
east side returned; and on Saturday He met them im the syna- 
gogue, where He made adiscourse. Wieseler (Syn., 276) makes 
the feeding of the five thousand to have been on the 14th Nisan 
or 16th April, at the same time when the paschal lamb was 
eaten at Jerusalem; and this day, therefore, was the 15th of 
Nisan, or the first feast Sabbath.2 But this is inconsistent with 


1 Winer, ii. 549. 2 So Tischendorf. 





Part V.] DISCOURSE AT CAPERNAUM. 331 


the notice of John (vi. 4), that the Passover was nigh, which 
implies that an interval of a day at least, if not of days, inter- 
vened. 

It is in question whether this discourse was spoken all at 
once on this day and in the synagogue, or on successive days. 
Some think that all from verses 26 to 41 was spoken to the 
multitudes, and before the Passover; and all from verses 41 to 
58 was spoken later, and after the Passover. The data are not 
sufficient to warrant this inference. (As to the divisions of 
the discourse, see Eders., il. 26; Westcott, and Luthardt, zn 
loco.) 

It has been often said that the Lord went up to Jerusalem to 
this Passover. (So Lightfoot.) Luthardt thinks that the people 
here gathered went up also with Him. But for this there is no 
good ground, and, when viewed in the light of their desire to 
make Him king, it is most improbable. The suggestion of Godet 
that the Lord regarded this feeding of the multitude as His 
passover, and in contrast with the paschal feast in Jerusalem, is 
fanciful; nor is there any reason to attach a sacramental charac- 
ter to it, as many have done. 

This discourse of the Lord so offended many of His disciples 
that from this time they walked no more with Him. Up to 
this time His works of healing had been so many and marvellous, 
that notwithstanding the open hostility of the scribes and Phari- 
sees, the people continued to gather to Him in crowds. And 
the last miracle, the feeding of the five thousand, was such an 
exhibition of power that it affected the popular imagination far 
more than many cases of individual healing, or even than the 
two instances of the raising of the dead. The time had now 
come when the true believers among the miscellaneous multitude 
must be separated. The Lord would find those who had ears 
to hear the higher truths respecting His Person and the purpose 
of the Father in Him, which He wished them to know before 
He was taken from them. This separation could be effected in 
no external way; but according to the measure of spiritual dis- 
cernment. He would find those who would follow Him because 
of the truth of His words, not as dazzled by the splendor of 
His works. His teaching respecting Himself as the Bread of 


332, TEE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part V. 


Life which came down out of heaven, was a crucial test. It was 
doubtless ‘a hard saying” even to the most discerning of the 
Apostles; and to many of the disciples, perhaps to a majority, they 
- were so repellent that they now turned away from Him. The 
answer of Peter to the question addressed to the Twelve, “ Will 
ye also go away?” marks a crisis in their relations to Him. Now, 
for the first time, so far as we know, there was a defection among 
His disciples. His teachings were too high for them, even when 
confirmed by such great miracles. But it was His words, not 
His works, that held the Twelve faithful. ‘Thou hast the 
words of eternal life,” said Peter. The right reading of the 
confession of Peter immediately following this is, according to 
Tischendorf :' “And we believe and are sure that thou art the 
Holy One of God ;” (R. V.: “ And we have believed and know 
that thou art the Holy One of God.”) This confession is to be 
distinguished from that made later (see Matt. xvi. 16), which 
displays a higher knowledge of the mystery of the Lord’s 
Person. 


Summer, 782. A.D. 29. 


While still at Capernaum, some of the scribes and Mart. xy, 1-20. 
Pharisees who have come from Jerusalem, see His dis- MARK vii. 1-23. 
ciples eating with unwashed hands, and find fault. This 
leads to a discussion of Pharisaic traditions and sharp 
reproofs of their hypocrisy. Leaving Capernaum, He 
goes with the Twelve into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, Marv. xy. 21-28. 
avoiding all publicity. But He can not be hid, and a Marx vii. 24-30. 
woman of that region coming to Him with urgent request, 

He heals her daughter. From thence He departs to the 

-egion of Decapolis, where He heals many, and one with Marr. xy. 29-39. 
an impediment in his speech, and afterward feeds a multi- Mark vii. 31-87. 
tude of 4,000 persons. Recrossing the sea He returns to MARK viii. 1-10. 
Capernaum, 


How long after the feeding of the five thousand the Lord 
continued at Capernaum, we cannot teli; but it is plain that He 
was found there by the Pharisees and scribes which came down 
from Jerusalem. dersheim (ii. 7) puts the eating with un- 
washed hands on the day of the Lord’s return from Bethsaida, 
and on the way to Capernaum, and before the discourse in the 
synagogue there; McClellan, some two months after the dis: 


1 So W. and H., Meyer; Ellicott, undecided. 





Part V.] PHARISEES AND SCRIBES FROM JERUSALEM. 333 


course; out most follow the order of Matthew. That this was 
as Wieseler maintains,‘ upon the 15th Nisan, the day when he 
supposes the discourse in the synagogue to have been delivered, 
is highly improbable. It is not likely that His enemies would 
leave Jerusalem till the Passover was fully over.?, Much earlier 
in the Lord’s ministry, as we have seen, a deputation of scribes 
had been sent from Jerusalem to watch and oppose Him. The 
presence of this new deputation may be ascribed to the reports 
that had been borne to that city by the pilgrims going to the 
feast, of the feeding of the five thousand, and of the wish of the 
people to make Him king. So great a miracle, and its effect on 
the popular mind, could not be overlooked, and they hastened to 
counteract, if possible, His growing influence. Arriving at 
Capernaum, and watchful to seize every possible ground of 
accusation against Him, they noticed that some of His disciples 
did not wash their hands in the prescribed manner before eating; 
a sign that théy were already in some degree becoming indiffer- 
ent to Pharisaic traditions. The words of the Lord in reply to 
the Pharisees are full of severity, and show that He knew that 
they were, and would continue to be, His enemies. Now for 
the first time He addresses them openly as hypocrites, and re- 
proaches them, that they set aside by their traditions the com- 
mandments of God. He proceeds to address the people upon 
the distinction between internal and external defilement; and 
afterward, when He was alone with the disciples, He explains 
to them more clearly what He had said. Afterward He goes 
with the Twelve into the region of Tyre and Sidon. 


Many ascribe the departure of the Lord into Pheenician territory 
to the fear of Herod. (So Keim.) But there is no evidence of this. 
If Herod had really wished to arrest Him, it would have been easy 
for him to do so when the Lord returned, as He did later, to Caper 
naum. And when the Lord was in Perea after He had left Galilee, 
He was still within Herod's jurisdiction, and yet was unmolested. 
(The message of the Pharisees, Luke xiii. 31, will be later examined.) 
If the king had felt any apprehension of political disturbance from 
His Messianic claims, he must have known that, aside from the oppo- 





1 Syn., 311, note 1. 

2 Tischendorf, Greswell. 

§ As to these traditions, see Lightfoot, Har., in Joco; Edersheim, ii. 8, who suggests 
thaj the real offense was, that the five thousand ate with unwashed hands. 


334 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part V. 


sition to Him of the Pharisees, His position was so much an enigma 
to the people that they were falling away from Him. (So Weiss, 
ili. 42.) Others make Him to have left Galilee through fear of the 
Pharisees. (So Greswell, ii. 354, who thinks His object was conceal- 
ment.) But these had no power to arrest Him, or to interfere with 
His labors, except by seeking to entrap Him upon points of the law, 
and otherwise to annoy Him, and to turn away the people from Him 
by threats of excommunication. The obvious ground of His retire- 
ment was not to escape personal danger but for the instruction of His 
disciples. 


It has been questioned whether the Lord went merely to the 
borders of Tyre and Sidon, or actually crossed them (Matt. xv. 
21; Mark vii. 24).'. Some light may be cast on this point if we 
consider His motive in the journey. That it was not to teach 

‘publicly seems plain from Mark’s words (vii. 24), “He would 
have no man know it.” He desired that His arrival should be 
kept secret. As He had directed the Twelve when upon their 
mission, not to “go into the way of the Gentiles” to preach, it 
is not probable that He would now do so. Nor is there any 
mention of teaching and healing, except in the case of the wo- 

_ man and her daughter. His motive in this journey obviously 

was to find the seclusion and rest which He had sought but in 
vain, to find on the east side of the lake, and could not find in 

Capernaum. He hoped on the remote frontiers of Galilee to 

escape for a time popular attention, and to be hid from the 
crowds that followed Him. It was for the Twelve that He 
sought a temporary retirement, and to them did He address 

His teachings. 

It would not then be inconsistent with His purpose that He 
should enter the heathen provinces of Tyre and Sidon. Some 
have objected that He would not have entered heathen territory, 
since He would thus become ceremonially defiled. But the fear 
of this could scarcely have affected His action. In this 
region He may obtain a little interval of repose. But He cannot 
be hid, and after healing the daughter of the Syropheenican wo- 
man in answer to her importunity, He is compelled to leave 


1 In favor of the latter, Alford, Alexander, Bleek, DeWette, Greswell; of the for- 
mer, Stier and Meyer, who refer to Matt. xv. 22, as showing that the Syropheenician 
woman came out of the coasts of Tyre and Sidon to meet Jesus, so that He was not within 
them. Keil thinks it cannot be decided. 


f 





Part V.] JESUS AT TYRE AND SIDON. 335 


that region. The route He followed is uncertain. It is said by 
Mark (vii. 31): “And again departing from the coasts of Tyre 
and Sidon, He came unto the Sea of Galilee through the midst of 
the coasts of Decapolis.” (R. V., ‘He went out from the borders 
of Tyre, and came through Sidon unto the Sea of Galilee”). 
“ As most of the cities of the Decapolis were situated southeast 
of the Sea of Tiberias, it is not improbable that our Lord, hay- 
ing gone to the east of Pheenicia through Upper Galilee, returned 
thence, by way of Lower Galilee through the plain of Esdraelon, 
to Bethshean (Scythopolis), the only city of Decapolis which is 
to the west of Jordan. Here He would cross the river, perhaps 
at the bridge now called Jisr Majumah, then possibly make a 
circuit about the district of Pella and Philadelphia to the south, 
about Gerasa to the east, and Gadara, Dios, and Hippo to the 
north. Thus He would ‘come unto the Sea of Galilee through the 
midst of the coasts of Decapolis.’”* But according to the reading 
of Tischendorf:? ‘Departing from the coasts of T'yre He came 
through Sidon — dia XudGvocg — to the Sea of Galilee.” He went 
therefore northward from Tyre, and passing through Sidon, not 
the city but the territory (contra, Keil), probably proceeded along 
the Pheenician border line to the Jordan, near Dan* (Laish), and 
journeying along its eastern bank came to the Decapolis. He may 
thus have visited the province of Herod Philip and Cesarea 
Philippi, although no special mention 1s made of it. ‘He went 
first northward (perhaps for the same reason of privacy as be- 
fore) through Sidon, then crossed the Jordan, and so approached 
the lake on its east side.”* How long the Lord continued in 
Gentile territory we do not know. Weiss says several months; 
there is no ground for this. It may have been as many weeks. 
What part of the Decapolis the Lord visited is not mentioned 
by any of the Evangelists. Under this title were included ten 
cities, eight or nine of which were on the east side of the Jor- 
dan, and east or southeast of the Sea of Galilee. It is spoken of 
by Josephus as a well-known territorial designation, embracing 
towns and villages. After Syria had been conquered by the 


1 G. Williams, in ‘‘ The Messiah,”’ 268, note. 

2 So W. and H., Meyer, and Alford. 

8 Josephus, War, iii. 3. 1. 

* Alford; see Lichtenstein, 284; Lindsay, in loco; Weiss, iii. 41. 


336 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part V. 


Romans, ten cities seem, on some grounds not well known, to 
have been placed under certain peculiar municipal arrange- 
ments, and brought directly under Roman rule. It is probable 
that their population was chiefly heathen. The names of the 
ten cities are differently given. To the original ten cities others 
were probably added, though at no time do they seem to have 
constituted a distinct province.’ 

It is impossible to tell where the healing of the deaf man with 
an impediment in his speech took place (Mark vii. 32). It may 
have been one of the cures mentioned by Matthew (xv. 29-31), 
and it was near the sea, and in the region of the Decapolis; but 
why Jesus enjoined silence upon the deaf man and his friends, 
when He directed the demoniacs at Gergesa to make their heal- 
ing known, we cannot tell. The injunction of silence was not 
heeded: ‘The more He charged them, so much the more a 
great deal they published it.” The effect of this was, as related 
by Matthew, a great gathering to Him of “the lame, blind, 
dumb, maimed, and many others,” whom He healed. Both 
Matthew and Mark speak of the wonder and astonishment of the 
multitude as they saw these healings. It is to be remembered 
that Jesus had not visited this region at all, except for the few 
hours when He healed the demoniacs of Gergesa, and afterward 
when He fed the five thousand; and the great body of the peo- 
ple now saw Him for the first time. The expression (Matt. xv. 
31), “they glorified the God of Israel,” may indicate that part 
of the multitude were heathen, and now glorified Jehovah in con- 
trast with their own deities; or it may have reference to the Jews 
as dwelling among the heathen, who saw in these miracles new 
proofs of the power of their God, before whom all others were 
but idols. 

Three days this great concourse of people to the number of 
four thousand, continued with the Lord, beholding His works, 
and listening to His words; and at their close He fed them with 
the seven loaves and a few fishes. The place where they were 
assembled was, beyond question, on the east side of the lake, 
and some suppose at the same place where He had fed the five 
thousand.? Matthew (xv. 29) relates that “He came nigh unto 


1 See Winer, i. 263; Smith’s Dict. of Bible, i. 419; Schiirer, ii. 118. 
2 So Trench, Mir., 285; Greswell, ii. 35% _ 











Part V.] FEEDING OF THE FOUR THOUSAND. 337 


the Sea of Galilee, and went up into a mountain and sat down 
there.” The use of the article, 76 dpos, “the mountain,” does 
not determine the spot, as it may be used to denote the high 
land in distinction from the lakeshore. It seems, however, more 
probable that it was at some point near the south end of the 
lake, as several cities of the Decapolis were in that vicinity. 
Caspari thinks it was south of the place of the feeding of the five 
thousand; Edersheim, in the Decapolis near the eastern shore. 
Ellicott’ suggests that its site may have been “ the high ground ” 
in the neighborhood of the ravine nearly opposite to Magdala, 
which is now called “ Wady Semak.” While there are several 
points of resemblance between this miracle and that of the feeding 
of the five thousand, there are many of difference: as to the number 
of persons fed, the quantity of food, the quantity of fragments 
gathered up, the time the multitude had been with Jesus, and 
the events both preceding and following the miracle. (See 
Mark viii. 19 ff., where the Lord distinguishes the two.) It is 
probable that many of the four thousand were heathen, or those 
who had come from the east side of the sea; while most of the 
five thousand seem to have followed Him from the western 
shore.? 

- After sending away the multitudes, He took ship, perhaps 
the ship kept specially for His use, and crossed the sea. He 
came, according to Matthew (xv. 39), “into the coasts of Mag- 
dala” (R. V. “into the borders of Magadan”); according to 
Mark (viii. 10), “into the parts of Dalmanutha.” Magdala— 
the Greek form of Migdol — watch-tower — is generally identi- 
fied with El Mejdel, a miserable village on the south side of the 
plain of Gennesaret, near the lake.* It is only a collection of 
filthy hovels with ruins of an old watch-tower, but was 
formerly a place of some importance. It is about three miles 
north of Tiberias, and probably at one time the two places may 
have been closely connected, as the remains of buildings are 
found all along the way between them. 

But it is not certain that this Magdala—el Mejdel — was 
the place to which the Lord went after the feeding of the four 
thousand (Matthew xv. 39). The reading Magadan is adopted 


1 221, note 1. 2 Trench, Mir., 286. 
3 poets 397; Porter, ii. 431; See, contra, Norton, notes, 153. 


338 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part V. 


by Tisch., W. and H., and Alford. Are Magdala and Magadan 
variations of the one name, or were there two distinct towns bear- 
ing these names? (In favor of the former, Gratz, Riehm, Herzog; 
of the latter, Robinson, Caspari, Edersheim.) If we accept Maga 
dan as the right reading, and a place distinct from Magdala, 
where was it? Caspari says: “The region of Magadan is the 
western domain of Scythopolis, or the region of the Ten Cities 
on this side Jordan.” Edersheim (ii. 67) would put Magadan 
south of the lake, and near the border of Galilee, but within 
the Decapolis; he does not, however, assign it any definite posi- 
tion. Ewald would identify it with Megiddo near Mt. Carmel. 

For the Magadan of Matthew, Mark (viii. 10) has Dalmanu- 
tha. Are we to identify Magadan and Dalmanutha? This is 
said by Edersheim (ii. 67): “The borders of Magadan must 
evidently refer to the same district as the parts of Dalmanu- 
tha.” If not different names for the same place, we may infer 
that they were so near each other that the adjacent territory 
might be called from either. It is said by Lightfoot (Choro. 
Decad., 225) that Dalmanutha is the name of a town or village 
not far from Magadan, or lying within its territories; and 
both are put in his map south of the lake and east of the Jordan. 
Some later writers are inclined to put Dalmanutha on the 
south or southeast of the lake. Edersheim (ii. 67), on etymo- 
logical grounds, thinks it may have been Tarichza at the exit of 
the Jordan. Thomson (Cen. Pal., 335) speaks of the ruins of a 
considerable town on the east bank of the Jordan five miles south 
of the lake, called Dalhuminyeh. (In Fischer & Guthe’s Map, 
Ed-Delhemije.) This is apparently the same place meant by 
Caspari (106), and accepted by him as Dalmanutha. 

But most, identifying Magadan and Magdala, put Dalmanu- 
tha near it on the west shore. Porter and Tristram find it at 
Ain el Barideh, lying a little south of Magdala. Keim (ii. 528) 
thinks Gadara is meant. The matter is unimportant, except as to 
its bearing on the place of the feeding of the four thousand. 
Did the Lord after this event return to the west shore, or did 
He keep within the limits of the Decapolitan territory to avoid 
the Pharisees? The latter view is not in itself improbable; it 
may be that He did not return to Capernaum at this time, but 





Part V.] PHARISEES SEEK A SIGN FROM HEAVEN. 339 


being disturbed by the Pharisees who sought Him at Dalmanu- 
tha, He crossed the lake to escape them (Mark viii. 13). Yet, 
upon grounds to be mentioned, it seems more probable that 
Dalmanutha was near Magdala, and that He returned to Caper- 
naum after feeding the four thousand. (See Weiss, iii. 12.) 


Summer, 782. A.D. 29. 


Sc soon as Jesus returns to Capernaum, the Pharisees Marr. xvi. 1-4. 
and Sadducees begin to tempt Him by asking asignfrom Mark. viii. 11, 12. 
Heaven. He reproyes their hypocrisy, and declares that 
no sign shall be given them but the sign of the prophet 
Jonas. Leaying them, He enters a ship, and again de- Marv, xvi. 5-13. 
parts across the lake toward Bethsaida. Upon the way Mark viii. 13-21. 
He discourses to the disciples respecting the leayen of 
the Pharisees. Arriving at Bethsaida, He heals a blind Marx yiii. 22-26. 
man and sends him privately home. 


Tt is not expressty said that Jesus went from Magdala, or 
Dalmanutha, to Capernaum, and it is possible that He may have 
met Pharisees and Sadducees at either of the former places; yet 
as the latter city was His home, to which He returned after all 
His circuits, and was but few miles from Magdala, we have no 
reason to doubt that He went thither as usual. But some, as 
Farrar, hold that He was at Dalmanutha or Magdala, and that 
His enemies went there to find Him. All depends on the posi 
tion of Dalmanutha; if it was in Decapolitan territory, we may 
infer that the Lord went there to avoid the Pharisees of Galilee, 
and that they sought Him out in His retreat. But if Dalmanutha 
was near Magdala on the west shore, there seems no good reason 
why He should not have gone to Capernaum, and the Pharisees 
and Sadducees have found Him there; for this meeting does not 
seem to have been accidental but premeditated on their part. 
It is the first time the latter are named in conjunction with the 
former, as acting unitedly in opposition to Him. Apparently as 
a party, the Sadducees had up to this time looked upon Him with 
indifference, if not contempt. But as His teachings began to 
expose their errors, and His reputation was too wide-spread to be 
overlooked, their hostility was aroused; and from this time they 
seem to have acted in unison with the Pharisees against Him. 

The peculiarity of the sign which His enemies now sought from 


oy 


340 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part V. — 


Him, was that it should be from heaven, or something visible in the 
heavens; perhaps some change in the sun or moon, or a meteor, 
or fire, or thunder and lightning. Denouncing them as hypo- 
erites, who could discern the face of the sky but could not dis- 
cern the signs of the times, He refuses to give them any other 
sign than one too late to profit them — His own resurrection. 

The departure from Capernaum, or, as some think, from 
Dalmanutha, across the sea, seems to have followed close upon 
this temptation of the Pharisees and Sadducees. That the Lord 
was greatly grieved at this new instance of their unbelief, ap- 
pears from Mark viii. 12, where it is said: “He sighed deeply 
in His spirit.” Alexander also observes that the expression, 
verse 13, ‘He left them,’ suggests the idea of abandonment, 
letting them alone, leaving them to themselves, giving them up 
to hopeless unbelief.” According to Matthew, He admonished 
His disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and 
Sadducees; according to Mark, of the leaven of the Pharisees 
and of Herod. This slight discrepancy is generally explained 
by saying that Herod was a Sadducee. This is in itself probable, 
for none of the Herodian princes seem to have imbibed the 
true Jewish spirit; and though fearing the Pharisees, because 
of their great influence over the people, yet they favored the 
Sadducees, and gave office so far as possible to men of that 
party. But it may be that the Lord speaks of hypocrisy in 
general as leaven, and so the same in whatsoever person or 
party it appeared. 

If Bethsaida were, as we suppose, at the mouth of the Jor- 
dan, its position would correspond with all the conditions of the 
present narrative. Although we know from the Lord’s own 
words (Matt. xi. 21) that He had wrought many mighty works 
in Bethsaida, yet the healing of the blind man is the only one 
recorded, except the feeding of the five thousand, which took 
place upon its territory. For some reason not stated (Mark 
viii. 23), the blind man was healed without the city. There are 
many points of resemblance between this miracle and that of the 
healing of the deaf man with an impediment in his speech 
(Mark vii. 32-37). In both the Lord is besought to touch them; 
He takes them aside from the people; He uses spittle; He en- 
joins silence, 


——— 


Part V.] JESUS AT THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES. 34] 


11th-18th Octoprr, 782. A.D. 29. 


Jesus goes up secretly to Feast of Tabernacles. During Joun vii. 2-10. 
the first days of the feast there is much inquiry among Joun vii. 11-13. 
the people concerning Him, and His probable appearance 
at the feast, but no one speaks openly through fear of 
the Jews. After His arrival at Jerusalem He goes into the JOHN vii. 14-31 
temple and teaches. His enemies wish to arrest Him but do 
not, and many people believe on Him. Upon a subsequent 
day of the feast the Pharisees make an attempt to arrest JOHN vii. 32-53. 
Him, but it fails, and the officers they had sent return, de- 
claring, ‘‘ Never man spake like this man.’’ Nicodemus 
makes an useless effort to induce them to act with equity. 

It is at this period that we put the Lord’s journey to Jeru- 
salem to the Feast of Tabernacles recorded by John (vii. 2-10). 
By many this journey and that mentioned by Luke (ix. 51-53) 
are regarded as identical. But a careful comparison shows so 
many points of difference that it is very difficult to believe them 
the same. These will be hereafter examined. For the present it 
will be assumed that the journeys are distinct, and that the one 
mentioned by Luke was later. But if there were two journeys, 
is that to Tabernacles to be inserted here? Did not the journey 
to Cxsarea Philippi follow immediately upon the miracle at 
Bethsaida? (Mark vil. 22-27; see Matt. xvi. 12-13.) This is 
said by many. But we leave this point also for future discus- 
sion ; and here assume that the Lord after this miracle went to 
Jerusalem to the feast, and returning to Galilee, went to Cesarea 
Philippi. 

In what place Jesus met His brethren (John vii. 3), and 
whence He departed to the feast, is not certain, but most prob- 
ably it was Capernaum.' His brethren appear not as wholly un- 
believers, but as those who, recognizing His works as wonderful, 
do not understand His course of conduct. Sharing the common 
opinions respecting the Messiah, they felt that if His Messianic 
claims were well founded, there could be no general recognition 
of them so long as He confined His labors to Galilee (see verses 

i and 52). In advising Him to go and show Himself in Judwa, 
their motives were friendly rather than evil. They knew that 
Jerusalem was the ecclesiastical centre, and that if He desired ta 


1 Greswell, ii. 482; Caspari, 168, 


342 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part V. 


be received by the nation at large, He must first find reception 
there. His works in Galilee, however great they might be, 
could avail little so long as the priests and scribes did not give 
Him their countenance and aid. The disciples He had already 
made were men of no reputation. Their adhesion gave Him no 
strength, for they were but Galilean fishermen and publicans, 
and, with few exceptions, poor and obscure people. He must 
then stay no longer in that remote province, but go up to Jerusa- 
lem, and there in the temple, and before the priests and rulers, do 
His works.' If once recognized there, He would be everywhere 
received. Had Jesus been such a Messiah as they supposed was 
to come, their advice was good. It is plain that they did not in 
any true sense believe on Him, but in a spirit of purely worldly 
wisdom attempted to guide Him in His conduct. Their advice 
was in its nature a temptation like that of the devil (Matthew iv. 5); 
a temptation to reveal Himself before the time, and in a pre- 
sumptuous way. 

To the counsel of His brethren Jesus replies in substance, 
that His time is not come; that they are always sure of a 
friendly reception from the world, but Him it must hate, because 
He testifies against it. ‘Go ye up to the feast. Ido not go up 
to it, for my time is not yet come.” Some think to find a contra- 
diction here, since, saying, “I go not up to this feast,” He after- 
ward went.? One solution makes Him to have had no intention 
at this time to go, but that afterward He changed His purpose in 
obedience to divine direction, and went. Another lays weight 
upon the use of the present tense, “I go not,” which means “T 
go not now, or yet”; or, as given by Alford, “I am not at present 
going up.” Another lays some weight upon “this feast,” count- 
ing it to begin on the 10th, the day of Atonement (so Caspari), 
which it is said He did not in fact attend, except in its last days. 
Still another thus defines His words: ‘I go not up with you, or 
in public with the company of pilgrims,” or, “I go not up in such 
way as you think or advise.” The matter to one who considers 
the scope of Christ’s reply to His brethren, presents no real dif- 


1 This advice seems to show that the Lord had not been in Jerusalem since the 
beginning of His Galilean ministry. 

2 For the reading in the received text, ‘I go not up yet,’ ovrw avaBaivw, which is 
retained in W. and H., and R. V., Tischendorf has “‘I go not up,”’ odx avaBaivw. So 
Alford, Meyer, Godet. 2 


Part V.] ATTEMPT TO ARREST THE LORD. 343 


ficulty. They had said: “Go up to this feast and manifest thy- 
self. Show thyself to the world, and work thy miracles in 
Judea.” He replied: “ My time to manifest myself is not yet 
come; I go not up to this feast with such intent. At some sub- 
sequent feast I shall manifest myself.” (See Godet, in loco.) 
As He had said, so He acted, going up to Jerusalem in a secret 
way, avoiding all publicity, nor arriving there till the feast was 
partially mast. At the following Passover He acted in substance 
as .__.. orethren had advised, showing Himself to the world, 
and entering the holy city as a King, amid the shouts of the 
multitude. 

The Feast of Tabernacles was preceded by the Fast of Atone- 
ment, upon the 10th Tisri, or the 6th of October of this year, 
the feast itself beginning on the 15th Tisri, or 11th of October. 
The Lord probably reached Jerusalem on the 13th or 14th of 
October. That He had reached the city earlier, and only now 

‘first showed Himself in the temple, is not implied in the narra- 
tive.’ We know not whether the apostles waited for Him, or 
went up at the usual time, but the latter is more probable. He 
went ‘as it were in secret,” which may imply not only that He 
went unattended, but went by some unusual and obscure route. 
That there was anything supernatural in His journey, or in His 
appearance in the temple, as some have supposed, does not appear 
in the narrative. 

Here, as elsewhere in the Gospel of John, a distinction is to 
be noticed, although not always preserved, between the “ Jews” 
and the “people.” By the former he means the nation as headed 
up in its rulers, and represented by them, and ever hostile to the 
Lord. Thus he says (verse 11): “The Jews sought Him at the 
feast, and said, ‘Where is He?’” Again (verse 13): “No man 
spake openly of Him, for fear of the Jews.” By the people 
he means the “crowd,” “multitude,” 6yA0c¢, regarded as an 
assemblage of individuals; among whom there were many dif- 
ferences of opinion, some favorable and some unfavorable to 
Jesus. (See verse 12.) A large portion of the crowd on this oc- 
casion was composed of pilgrims to the feast, and these are dis- 


1 So Edersheim; He went up later than His brethren, but still before the feast 
began; and at that time visited Mary at Bethany, but did not enter the temple till two or 
three days had passed. 


344 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part V. 


tinguished from the citizens of Jerusalem (verse 25). But there 
was no public expression of opinion in His favor, all His friends 
being afraid of the hierarchy. His sudden appearance in the 
temple at so late a period of the feast surprised all; and the 
power of His speech, not the truths that He uttered, made His 
enemies to marvel. It will serve to the understanding of the 
present narrative to keep in mind that at the time of the healing 
of the impotent man the Jewish rulers determined, perhaps 
formally in full Sanhedrin, to put Him to death (John y. 16-18); 
that this determination was known to some at least of the 
citizens of Jerusalem; and that Jesus had not, from that time to 
the present, entered Juda. He could now, therefore, refer 
back to that miracle, and to the purpose to kill Him, as to things 
well known to the rulers and to Jerusalemites, although most 
of the multitude, doubtless the feast pilgrims (verse 20), were 
ignorant of this purpose. Thus we readily see why the citizens 
were surprised that He should be allowed to speak at all in the 
temple. 

It is not plain when the Pharisees and chief priests (verse 
32) sent officers to take Him. (The seeking to take Him — verse 
30 — seems to have been earlier, and not an official act. See verse 
44.) It was perhaps, as said by Stier, upon the day following His 
appearance in the temple, and before the last day of the feast. 
Greswell supposes that for prudential reasons they deferred the 
attempt till the last day. It was plainly an act not of individuals, 
but whether that of the Sanhedrin, now assembled specially for 
the purpose, is in question. This is commonly said (so Meyer, 
Godet), but it is denied by Edersheim (ii. 155): “Here was 
neither meeting, nor decree of the Sanhedrin, nor, indeeed, could 
be.” He supposes a conference between the heads of the priest- 
hood and the chief Temple officials, and that the officers were of 
the Temple-guard. They were induced to take this step by the 
great impression His teachings had made upon the people. But, 
if the officers were sent before the last day, they seem to have 
waited for a more favorable hour, perhaps fearing to attempt an 
arrest, and to have contented themselves with watching Him till 
the conclusion of the feast. Upon the last day some of the mul- 
titude (v. 44) would have taken Him, but the officers, who had 
been greatly moved by His words, made no effort to do so; much 


Part V.] JESUS TEACHES IN THE TEMPLE. 345 


to the vexation of those who had sent them, and to whom they 
now made their report. 

The haughtiness of the priests and Pharisees, and their con- 
tempt for all not of themselves, are strikingly displayed in their 
remarks upon the return of the officers; and their rejection of 
the manifestly just and legal proposition of Nicodemus shows 
that they were bound by no considerations of equity. It is pos- 
sible that others agreed with Nicodemus, and that there were 
internal dissensions in the council. 

It is disputed whether ‘the last, the great day of the feast” 
(verse 37) was the seventh or eighth. Most maintain the latter.’ 
According to the law (Numb. xxix. 35), upon the eighth day a 
solemn assembly should be held and special sacrifices offered. 
This day seems to have become in popular estimation the great 
day of the feast. Lightfoot (cm loco), after stating the Jewish 
opinions as to the meaning of the several sacrifices, adds: “On 
the other seven days they thought supplications and sacrifices 
were offered, not so much for themselves as for the nations of 
the world; but the solemnities of the eighth day were wholly in 
their own behalf. They did not reckon the eighth day as 
included within the feast, but a festival day, separately and by 
itself.”? It is questioned whether the drawing of water, to 
which the Lord is supposed to allude (verses 37, 38), and which 
took place upon each of the seven days, took place also upon the 
eighth.* But if it did not, as Alford rightly remarks, it would 
not exclude a reference to what had been done on the preceding 
days. Many, however, maintain that water was also poured out 
on the eighth day, and that Christ’s words were spoken as the 
priest who bore it entered the court. 


OctoBER, 781. A.D. 29. 


[The Lord spends the night following at the Mount of [JOHN viii. 1-11.) 
Olives, and returning early next morning to the temple, 
teaches the people. An adulteress is brought before Him, 
whom He directs to go and sinnomore.] He answers the 


1 So Meyer, Alford, Tholuck, Lichtenstein, Godet, Westcott, M. and M.; contra, 
Greswell, Edersheim (ii. 176), who mentions six points which mark the octave as a sepa 
Tate feast. 

2 See Josephus, Antiq., iii. 10. 4. 

8 See Winer, ii. 8, note 2; Alford in loco. 


15* 


346 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. {Part V. 


Pharisees from the treasury, and continues to speak to 

the people. Many believe on Him, but others are angry, JOHN viii. 12-59. 
and take up stones to cast at Him. As He goes, He meets 

and heals a blind man, who had been blind from birth, Jou ix, 1-12, 
and it is the Sabbath. So soon as this miracle is re- 

ported to the Pharisees, they call him and his parents, JOHN ix. 13-34. 
and examine him and cast him out. He afterward meets 

Jesus, and believes and worships Him. Some Pharisees Joun ix. 35-38. 
who are present ask Him a question, to which He replies Joun ix. 39-x. 18, 
in the parable of theGoodShepherd. There is great divi- JoHN x. 19-21, 
sion of sentiment among the Jews in regard to Him. 

The exact order of the events given above is not certain. 
The best authorities reject as not genuine the account of the 
adulterous woman.’ If this be rejected, commencing vii. 53, 
and extending to viii. 12, it will read: “Search and look, for out 
of Galilee ariseth no prophet. Then spake Jesus again unto 
them ” (R. V., «‘ Again, therefore, Jesus spake unto them”), and in 
this case, His words from viii. 12-20 were spoken in the treasury 
upon the last day of the feast, and perhaps also the subsequent 
words to verse 59. We give the probable order. The feast began 
on the 15th Tisri, and ended on the 21st. The eighth day was the 
22d, which was observed as a Sabbath. We cannot tell whether 
Jesus appeared in the temple and taught (vii. 14) on the 17th, 
18th, or 19th day. According to Wieseler (309), it was the 
18th, which he makes to have been a Sabbath; according to 
Greswell (ii. 491) it was the 19th. It may, with equal proba- 
bility, have been the 17th. Assuming that the last great day of 
the feast was the 22d, an interval of three or more days must 
have elapsed after His appearance in the temple. Upon the 
first of these days occurred what is narrated in vii. 14-31, or, 
as some prefer, in 14-27. The next event mentioned (verse 
32), the sending of officers, was probably on the next day, and 
they were directed to watch Him, and arrest Him when they 
found a good occasion. When the words in verses 33-36 were 
spoken is not said, but probably after the officers began to watch 
Him. There are then two or three days of the feast during 
which Jesus was present, of which nothing is related. Upon 
the last day He speaks of Himself as giving living water (vii. 
37-38). Whether His words in viii. 12-20 and 21-59, omitting 


1 So Tischendorf, W. and H., Meyer, Alford, Tholuck, Trench. 





q 


Part V.] HEALING OF THE BLIND MAN. 347 


here the account of the adulterous woman as not genuine, were 
ail spoken afterward upon the same day, or upon successive days, 
it is difficult to decide. Some infer from the mention of the 
“treasury ” in verse 20, and the use of ‘‘again” in verse 21 (see 
verse 12), that these words were spoken after the eighth day, and 
upon different days.'. Some, on the other hand, making the 
healing of the blind man (ix. 1-7) to have taken place on the 
last day of the feast, which was a Sabbath, refer all His words 
(ch. viii.) to this day. The former is most probable, and from 
viii. 21-59 we find but the events of a single day. Was the 
blind man healed on this day? So say many, bringing the 
attempt to stone Him and the miracle into immediate connection.” 
But it is more probable that some interval elapsed. It is not 
likely that Jesus, when “He hid Himself and went out of the 
temple,” was accompanied by His disciples; yet they were with 
Him when He saw the blind man (ix. 2). Nor would they in 
such a moment be likely to ask speculative questions respecting 
the cause of the man’s blindness. We conclude, then, that the 
Sabbath upon which the blind man was healed (ix. 14) was not 
the eighth day of the feast, but the first week-Sabbath following. 

The view of Westcott should be mentioned here. He sup- 
poses that the Lord’s acts and words from ix. 1 to x. 20 were not 
at this Feast of Tabernacles, but at the later Feast of Dedication. 
This is based upon the reading éyéveto téte Ta évkaivia — “Then 
was the Feast of Dedication.” But Tisch. and the revisers retain 
the textus receptus ; in R.V.: “And it was the Feast of the Dedi- 
cation. It was winter.” 

The effect of Christ’s words (viii. 21-29) was such that 
“many believed on Him,” It is questioned whether these be- 
levers are meant in verse 33, and whether to them, in common 
with others, are addressed the subsequent words (34-38). “The 
Lord mingles them indiscriminately in the general mass of the 
people, in spite of the transient and indistinct impulse of faith.” * 
But it seems more probable that He speaks to the Jews gener- 
erally, and does not include them, for those could noi in any 
sense be said to believe on Him to whom He immediately ad- 


1 So Meyer. 2 Meyer, Luthardt, Trench. 
’ See Alford, in loco. # Stier; so Alford. 


348 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part V. 


dresses the reproach: “Ye seek to kill me because my word 
hath no place in you.” 

The attempt to stone Him (verse 59) was the fruit of sudden 
rage. It is denied by many, as Meyer and Alford, that the 
Lord’s escape from their violence involved anything super- 
natural. The language may be construed either way; but, as 
said by Winer,? the supernatural interpretation is to be preferred 
as more correspondent with the character of this Evangelist. 
Tholuck does not find the intimation of a miracle in the strict 
sense of the word, but of a special providence. 

The position of the pool of Siloam, where the blind man 
was sent to wash, had been much disputed, but all modern 
writers agree that it lies at the mouth of the valley of the Tyro- 
peon, near the base of Ophel.’ The waters of this pool come 
from the fountain of the Virgin, which lies on the west side of 
the valley of Jehosaphat, through a subterranean passage cut in 
the rock. It is a current belief that the water of the fountain 
comes from a living spring beneath the temple. Barclay (523), 
however, asserts that the subterranean canal derived its former 
supply of water, not from Moriah but from Zion.‘ It is still in 
dispute whether any of the water of Siloam comes from the 
temple.® 

The effect of this miracle was to make a division among the 
Pharisees. Some said that it was a violation of the law, being 
done on the Sabbath; others, that no sinner could do such 
miracles. At first there was a general disposition to doubt the 
reality of the miracle, perhaps, as said by Weiss, to regard it as 
a concerted deception. As this, however, was established by the 
testimony of his parents, they reviled the man and cast him out. 
This may refer to his being thrust from the room where they 


1 In the Greek text, Tisch., W. and H., 59 ends with tepod. R. V. ‘‘ went out 
of the temple.’’ Edersheim thinks He hid Himself for a moment in one of the many 
chambers of the temple, and then passed out. 

2 Gram., 264; see Bengel, in loco. 

3 Robinson, i. 333; Raumer, 296; Lewis, 119. 

4 See Robinson, i. 348; Porter, i. 138. 

6 For the latest examination of this pool, see Qt. St., January, 1891, 13, and the 
references there to earlier statements. It will be noted that the healing of the impotent 
man was at the pool of Bethesda. 


ee 


Part V.] RETURN AFTER TABERNACLES TO GALILEE. 349 


were assembled,' or to the sentence of excommunication.?, Some 
suppose that He was now before the great Sanhedrin; others, 
that He was before the lesser; others still, that he was not before 
any judicial tribunal, but before some of the chief Pharisees in- 
formally assembled. From the manner of the examination and 
their action at its close, it is most probable that they were clothed 
with some ecclesiastical authority. 

How soon after the blind man was cast out the Lord met 
him, is not stated. Not improbably, He may have met Him the 
same day toward evening. It is in question what is the right 
reading of the Lord’s words in verse 35: ‘“ Dost thou believe on 
the Son of God”? Tisch., W. and H., read, “Son of Man.” 
(In R. V., “Son of God” is retained; so Edersheim, who relies 
on “the internal evidence.”) The words in verse 39 seem to 
have been addressed to the disciples, and probably after His 
meeting with the blind man, and the words to the Pharisees 
immediately followed. The effect of these words was again to 
work a division of opinion respecting Him, some saying that 
He had a devil, others, that neither His words nor works 
were those of a man who had a devil. 

From Jerusalem, as we here assume, the Lord returns to 
Galilee. Of His return the Evangelist gives us no information. 
Many suppose that He did not return to Galilee at this time, 
but spent the interval between the feasts of Tabernacles and of 
Dedication at Jerusalem or in its vicinity.? It will be shown 
that this journey to the feast of Tabernacles is not identical 
with that in Luke ix. 51, and that the latter was subsequent. 
A full discussion of all these points is reserved to the part fol- 
lowing. 

If we compare the discourse of the Lord when at the unnamed 
feast (John v. 1) with those at this later feast of Tabernacles, and 
their attendant circumstances, we find many important differences, 
showing that a considerable interval of time had elapsed. In the first, 
though there is mention of a multitude as present (verse 18), yet they 
apparently take no part in the proceedings against Him, and are 


1 Meyer, Lichtenstein. 

2 Alford. Trench embraces both. As to the effect of excommunication, see 
Hders., ii. 183. 

8 So Meyer, Alford, Tholuck, Robinson, Tischendorf. 


350 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD, [Part V. 


either ignorant or uninterested. There is evidently no popular ex- 
citement about Him, and nothing is said of any Messianic claims. 
All this corresponds to the fact that up to this time He had been 
laboring in Judea, and with special reference to the rulers at Jerusa- 
lem, and to them His discourse was addressed. The public at large 
knew little of Him. But at the last feast the multitude is plainly 
much excited in regard to Him. The question is earnestly asked 
whether He will come to the feast, and they dispute as to His charac- 
ter and work and His Messianic claims, All this shows that He had 
at this time become well known throughout the land, for these multi- 
tudes were doubtless the feast-pilgrims coming from all parts of it; 
and that there was a very deep interest in His personal movements. 

Comparing the conduct of the Jews toward the Lord at the two 
feasts, we see that their hostility had greatly increased. At the first, 
the charge brought against Him was that He had broken the Sabbath 
by the healing of the impotent man; now, the charge against Him, 
one made by the Pharisees in Galilee, and become current among the 
multitudes, is that He has a devil. His enemies had taken the posi- 
tion that all His words and works were those of a man possessed. 
This permitted no compromise, no middle ground was possible. He 
was not, they said, sent of God, a teacher, a prophet, much less the 
Christ, but sent of the devil; and hence the greater severity of the 
Lord’s words, and the clear, and strong, and oft-repeated affirma- 
tions of His divine mission and of His relations to the Father. 

It is important to note what knowledge the people at large had of 
His Messianic character, at this late stage of His ministry, and the 
division of sentiment respecting Him which His words at this 
feast made. That which had kept them so long in doubt, was His 
refusal to take any such step to assert His royal claims as they ex- 
pected the Messiah would do when He came. His miracles made a 
deep impression, and they asked: ‘‘ When the Christ shall come, will 
He do more signs than those which this man hath done?” But this 
inactivity led them to believe that He Himself was not the Messiah, 
but His forerunner. In this state of uncertainty it was natural that 
His words should have caused frequent and rapid transition of feel- 


ing. Now many believed on Him, now they argued against Him, 


now they took up stones to stone Him. The Pharisees, seeing these 
alternations of popular feeling, were alarmed, and asked anxiously: 
‘“‘ Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on Him?” Even 
among these was at last a division (x. 20-1); for while many said 
(R. V.): ‘‘He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye Him?” others 
said, ‘‘These are not the sayings of one possessed with a devil. Wan 
a devil open the eyes of the blind?” 


Part V.] JESUS IN REGION OF CHSAREA PHILIPPI. 351 


It was apparent to the Lord that the hatred of the rulers at Jerusa- 
lem had only intensified with time. All that was remained was to 
return to Galilee and prepare His disciples for that hour which was 
rapidly approaching, when His words would be fulfilled: ‘‘ Yet a 
little while I am with you, and I go unto Him that sent me.” 


Autumn, OcroserR To NovemBer, 782. A.D. 29. 


Returning to Galilee, Jesus goes with His disciples to Marx viii. 27-33. 
the region of Cesarea Philippi. Whileuponthe way,He Marv. xvi. 13-23. 
asked them, ‘‘ Whom do mensay that lam?”’ Hethen LUKE ix. 18-22. 
asks them their opinion of Him, and Peter replies that He 
is the Christ, the Son of the living God. This truth He 
commands them to tell to no one; and now begins to 
teach them respecting His approaching rejection by the 
Jews, His death, and resurrection after three days. 

Peter would rebuke Him for these words, but is himself 

rebuked. Jesus afterward addresses the disciples and Mark viii. 34-88. 
people, and teaches them what is involved in following Marr. xvi. 24-28. 
Him, and speaks of the rewards He will give to all LUKE ix. 23-27. 
when He shall come again in the glory of His Father. 

He adds, that some standing before Him should see Him Marx ix. 1-10. 
come in the glory of His kingdom. Six days afterHe Marv. xvii. 1-9. 
goes to a high mountain, taking with Him Peter, James, LUuKE ix. 28-36. 
and John, and is transfigured before them. 


To what place in Galilee the Lord returned after the feast 
in Jerusalem we do not know, but probably He went to Capernaum, 
and from thence to Cxsarea Philippi. (The point of departure, 
whether from Capernaum or Bethsaida, will be later considered.) 

It is said by Mark (viii. 27): “Jesus went out and His 
disciples into the towns— k@puac— of Cexsarea Philippi.” As 
His chief purpose in this journey was that He might instruct 
His disciples, it is not probable that He taught in these towns, but 
passed quietly through them, avoiding publicity as far as possible. 
Still in this circuit, as in that through Tyre and Sidon, “He - 
could not be hid.” It is said by Alexander that “the multitude 
was never far off, even when the Lord was most retired.” It 
is therefore not in contradiction to this that the Lord is said by 
Mark (viii. 34), at a little later period during this circuit, “to have 
called the people unto Him, with His disciples also,” His 
teaching respecting the self-denial needed in a disciple, having 
an equal application to both. That ‘He called the people 


352 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part V. 


unto Him” marks this as a special act (see vii. 14); and it does 
not follow from this, as Ellicott says, that His object in His 
journey was public preaching and teaching. 

We do not know where the Lord was when He asked the 
disciples, “ Whom do men say that I am?” Matthew says (xvi. 
13): “When Jesus came unto the coasts — parts —of Cwsarea 
Philippi, He asked,” etc. Mark (viii. 27): “And by the way, 
He asked,” etc. Luke (ix. 18), who makes no mention of this 
circuit, and gives no indication of the place, says: “And it 
came to pass, as He was alone praying, His disciples were with 
Him, and He asked them.”’ Whether the Lord actually 
entered the city of Cwsarea Philippi, we cannot tell, but the prob- 
ability is that He did not. 

The apostles, in their answer to the Lord’s question, ‘““ Whom 
do men say that I am?” give the opinions then most current 
among the people generally in Galilee. It is not certain 
whether He was through ignorance confounded with John the 
Baptist, as if the latter were still living, or was thought to be 
the Baptist raised from the dead. The latter is most probable, 
and perhaps reference may be made to the opinion of Herod 
and his party. It will be remembered that the Lord did not 
begin His Galilean ministry till the Baptist was imprisoned, and 
so removed from public observation. We do not know that he 
carried on any baptismal work in Galilee, and it is not strange, 
therefore, that there should have been some confusion in the pop- 
ular mind respecting him. Those who knew that Jesus and John 
had carried on contemporaneous labors in Juda, could not pos- 
sibly have identified them as one; but many in Galilee were 
doubtless ignorant of this. How intimate was the connection 
in the Jewish mind between the resurrection and the kingdom 
of heaven and the advent of Christ, is shown by Lightfoot (on 
John i, 25): “The Jews believed that at the coming of the 
Messiah the prophets were to rise again. The nearer still the 
‘kingdom of heaven’ came, by so much the more did they 
dream of the resurrection of the prophets.” 

It is to be noted that no important part of the people seem to 


1 This mention of His being alone (see Mark iy. 10) shows that none but the 
disciples were with Him. 




















Part V.] THE CONFESSION OF PETER. 393 


have regarded Jesus as the Christ, or else it would have been 
mentioned by the apostles. It is apparent that He was regarded 
rather as a forerunner of the Messiah than as the Messiah Him- 
self, though public sentiment may have changed from time to 
time in regard to His Messianic claims.‘ On the one hand, He 
had been pointed out as the Messiah by John, and His mighty 
works manifestly proved His divine commission; yet, on the 
other hand, He did not openly avow Himself to be the Messiah, 
and His whole course of conduct was in striking contrast to theiz 
Messianic expectations. While a few here and there said, ‘He 
is the Christ,” the general voice began to be that He was but a 
forerunner. Weiss (ii. 52) thinks that the answer shows only 
that the people no longer considered Him as the Messiah, not 
that many had not formerly done so. After the feeding of 
the five thousand, there was a desire to make Him king; it 
was the natural effect of so stupendous a miracle upon the rest- 
less Jewish mind, eager to cast off the Roman and Idumzan yoke; 
but the next day many of His disciples, and perhaps those most 
zealous to make Him a king, repelled by His words, “ went 
back and walked no more with Him.” It is said by Lindsay: 
“The people had fancied that He was the Messiah; they did so 
no longer.” This confession of Peter, which was that of all the 
apostles, was therefore a great turning point in their history. 
To others He was only the Baptist, or Elias, or one of the proph- 
ets; to them ‘“‘He was the Christ, the Son of the hving God.” 

We are not concerned in these discussions to enter upon 
points of interpretation, except so far as they bear directly upon 
our historical understanding of the Gospels. That there was 
during the Lord’s ministry a development in the minds of His 
disciples, and especially of the Twelve, of their conceptions as to 
His Person, is undoubted; and we may briefly outline the 
progress of this development as it is made known in their 
successive confessions. 

The first confession made was that of Andrew at Bethabara 
(John i. 41) to his brother Peter: ‘‘ We have found the Mes- 
siah.” The second was that of Philip (verse 45): “‘ We have 
found Him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did 


354 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part V. 


write, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Joseph.” The third was that 
of Nathanael (verse 49): “ Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou 
art the King of Israel.” The comparison of these several con- 
fessions shows that in their minds the terms “ Messiah ” and “Son 
of God ” were interchangeable, and that both were compatible with 
the fact that He so designated should be born of a human father, 
and at Nazareth in Galilee. A later confession was that of those 
in the ship when the Lord walked upon the water (Matt. xiv. 
33): “Of a truth thou art the Son of God.” After the dis- 
course in Capernaum (John vi. 69) Peter made the confession: 
“We believe, and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of 
the living God.” (The best authorities substitute for this read- 
ing that of the R. V., “that thou art the Holy One of God.” *) 
The last of these confessions — that now before us, made in 
answer to the Lord’s question — is briefest in Mark: “Thou art 
the Christ”; in Luke: “The Christ of God”; in Matthew 
more full: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 
As we must believe that the imperfect conceptions of the 
disciples in regard to the Lord’s Person were much enlarged 
through His teachings, we ask as to the new elements now made 
known. They were two: first, that of His pre-existence; and as 
involved in this, His coming down from heaven. To Nicode- 
mus He said: ‘‘No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He 
that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in 
heaven.” So to the disciples at Capernaum He said (John vi. 38): 
“For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will but 
the will of Him that sent me.” Again (vill. 42), “I proceeded 
forth and came from God.” And even more distinctly (John 
vill. 58): “Before Abraham was, I am.” (See also vi. 33, 
51, 62.) If pre-existence had already entered as an element into 
the Jewish conception of the Messiah, it was now confirmed; 
but probably it had never been held unless in a very vague way. 
The second element was that of Sonship as involving unity 
of essence. The Son’s relation to the Father was not that of a 
man sent and endowed by the Father to do His work, His 
servant; but of one equal to the Father, yet as Son subordinate 
to Him. Of this Sonship He had spoken to the Jews (John v 


1 So Tisch., W. and H., Meyer, Gardiner, Riddle, and many; contra, McClellan. 





Part V.] THE TRANSFIGURATION. 355 


17 ff.), and they had understood Him as “making Himself 
equal with God.” His words spoken at the Feast of Dedication 
(x. 30): “I and my Father are One,” were understood in the 
same sense: ‘‘ Thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” 

These declarations of the Lcerd respecting His Person 
publicly made, must not only have been known, but also believed 
by His disciples, even if He had not Himself taught them in 
private more fully and plainly. We must, therefore, believe 
that in this confession of Peter was embraced the fact of the 
Incarnation, though doubtless in a very undefined way, for it 
could not have been rightly understood till after His death and 
resurrection and ascension. The mystery of His Person — “ the 
Word made flesh ” — was something not to be known through 
the senses, or through any exercise of the understanding. Nor 
could it be proved by any miracles, even the most stupendous. 
li known, it must be through the revelation of God. 

This truth, so far surpassing all the common Jewish concep- 
tions of the Messiah, of the united Divinity and humanity of 
the Lord, being known and confessed by the Twelve, Jesus could 
begin to open to them other truths till this time concealed. 
Now He could teach them that His first work was to suffer; 
that He must be rejected by the Jews and be put to death; that 
He must rise from the dead; and would afterward establish His 
kingdom. These truths, so new and strange to the disciples, so 
foreign to all their modes of thinking, they could not for a long 
timecomprehend. The very fact of the Divinity of Jesus, even as 
now imperfectly understood by them, made it still more incompre- 
hensible how He could suffer and die; nor could the plainest 
words of the Lord make it intelligible. How repugnant to their 
feelings was the announcement of His sufferings is graphically 
shown in the language of the impetuous Peter: “ Be it far from 
thee, Lord; this shall not be unto thee” —language which 
brought upon him the severest rebuke. 

From this time the teaching of Jesus to His disciples, and 
also to the people at large (see Mark viii. 34; Luke ix. 23) 
assumed a new character. Gradually, as the Twelve were able 
to bear it, He showed them how the great purpose of God 
in the Messiah must be effected through His death, and how 


356 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part V. 


His sufferings had been foretold by the prophets So far from 
now establishing any earthly kingdom in which they should 
have distinguished places, He must be put to a most ignominious 
death, and all who received Him as the Messiah would do it at 
the peril of their lives. Yet, as a counterpoise to the gloomy 
picture, He speaks of an hour when He would come again, and 
then every disciple should have His reward. (What the disciples 
understood by His coming again, whether He was to be hidden 
from them for a time and then reappear as King; or that He 
would suddenly manifest Himself as King, will be later con- 
sidered.) Thus He confirmed to them the great fact that He was 
to establish a kingdom in power and glory. To prevent the 
disciples from seizing upon this fact, and indulging in dreams of 
a reign corresponding to that of earthly kings, the Lord was 
pleased to show certain of the apostles, by a momentary trans- 
figuration of His body, the supernatural character of His king- 
dom, and into what new and higher conditions of being both 
He and they must be brought ere it could come. The promise 
that some then standing before Him should not taste death till 
they had seen “the Son of man coming in His kingdom” (Matt. 
xvi. 28), or had seen “ the kingdom of God come with power” 
Mark ix. 1), was fulfilled when, after six days, He took Peter, 
James, and John into a high mountain apart, and was trans- 
figured before them. Trench (Studies in the Gospels, 188) re- 
marks that “nearly all the early expositors, the fathers and 
the medieval interpreters find in the glory of the Transfigura- 
tion the fulfillment of the promise.” These apostles now saw 
Him as He should appear when, risen from the dead and 
glorified, He should come again from heaven to take His great 
power and to reign. They saw in the ineffable glory of His 
Person and in the brightness around them, a foreshadowing of the 
kingdom of God as it should come with power, and were for a 
moment “ eye-witnesses of His majesty” (2 Peteri. 16). Many 
errors still remained to be removed from their minds, especially 
respecting the time of its establishment (Acts i. 6), but the great 
fact of its supernatural character they could not mistake. 
Henceforth the phrase ‘kingdom of God” had to these apostles 
a significance which it probably had not had to any of the prophets, 
and certainly had not to any of the Rabbis or priests. 





Part V.] MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION, 357 


The three apostles were commanded to tell no one of the 
vision till Jesus had risen from the dead. It therefore remained 
for a considerable period unknown to the other apostles and 
disciples. It was natural that they should question one with 
another, as they descended the mount, what the rising from the 
dead should mean (Mark ix. 10). They had just seen the Lord 
transfigured. He had not died, yet had His body been invested 
with heavenly glory. It was not then necessary to die and to rise 
again in order to be glorified. What, then, should the death and 
resurrection of which He had spoken mean? Nota literal death 
and resurrection, but a spiritual death—some act of suffering 
or self-sacrifice, upon which supernatural glory would follow. 
And thus the resurrection from the dead, as a preliminary to 
the kingdom, became still more incomprehensible. 

The statements of the Evangelists do not enable us to decide 
where the Transfiguration took place. Matthew and Mark speak 
of it as “a high mountain”; Luke, as “the mountain,” 76 dpogc. 
A tradition, dating back to the fourth century, gives Tabor in 
Galilee as the site. This is a very conspicuous mount rising 
out of the plain of Esdraelon, cone-shaped, about 1,400 above the 
plain or 1,900 above the sea, its slopes wooded, and only a few 
miles from Nazareth. All travellers speak of it as in itselfa 
beautiful object, and presenting a wide view from the summit. 
So generally received for many centuries was this tradition, 
that Lightfoot (Mark ix. 2) says: “I know it will be laughed at 
if I should doubt whether Christ was transfigured on Mount 
Tabor, for who ever doubted of this thing?”’* According to 
Robinson (ii. 358) the first notice of Tabor as the place of the 
Transfiguration is as a passing remark by Cyril of Jerusalem, 
and afterward by Jerome. Before the close of the sixth century 
three churches were builded there, and afterward a monastery 
was founded. Arculf, A. D. 700,? says: “At the top is a 
pleasant and extensive meadow surrounded by a thick wood, 
and in the middle of the meadow a great monastery with nu- 
merous cells of monks. There are also three handsome churches, 
according to the number of tabernacles described by Peter.” 


1 The feast of the Transfiguration is called by the Greeks the ‘“‘ Tabor feast” — 
To @a8wpiov. 
2 Early Travels, 9. 


358 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part V. 


Robinson and Stanley think it conclusive against this tradition, - 
that at the time of the Transfiguration “ the summit of Tabor was 
occupied by a fortified city.” Thomson, however (ii. 139), does 
not regard this as presenting any difficulty. ‘There are many se- 
cluded or densely-wooded terraces on the north and northeast sides, 
admirably adapted to the scenes of the Transfiguration. After 
all that the critics have advanced against the current tradition, 
I am not fully convinced.” Admitting that much may be said in 
favor of Mount Tabor as “the high mountain ” of the Evangelists, 
still their narra*:ves lead us to place this event in the neighborhood 
of Cxsarea Philippi rather than on the west of the lake. “The 
Evangelists,” says Lightfoot, ‘intimate no change from place to 
place.” The expression of Mark (ix. 30), that “ departing thence 
He passed through Galilee,” would imply that He was not 
then in Galilee. We are therefore made to look for some 
mountain in the vicinity of Cesarea, and Mount Hermon at once 
rises before us.'. “Standing amid the ruins of Caesarea we do — 
not need to ask what that ‘high mountain’ is. The lofty ridge 
-of Hermon rises over us, and probably on one or other of those 
wooded peaks above us that wondrous event took place.”? 

The difference in the computation of Matthew and Mark on 
one side, who say, ‘‘ After six days He taketh Peter, James, and 
John into a high mountain apart,” and Luke, who says, “ About 
an eight days after these sayings, He took,” etc., is easily recon- 
ciled if we suppose that the latter included, while the former 
excluded, both the day on which the words were spoken and 
the day of the Transfiguration. Some, as Meyer, prefer to take 
Luke’s phrase “about an eight days” as indefinite, but this is 
contrary to the use of @oei, with numerals by this Evangelist. 
The six days, according to Lange, are probably to be counted 
from the day of Peter’s confession. Others, as Lightfoot, 
count from the day the words of Matt. xvi. 28 were spoken. 
Not improbably the days were identical. It is not certain 
at what period of the day the Transfiguration took place, 
but most probably during the night, or at the early dawn. 
(Greswell, ii. 368.) Darkness was not indeed, as some have sup. 


1 Lightfoot, Reland. 
2 Porter, ii. 447; so Stanley, Lichtenstein, Ritter, Eders. Godet; Keil and Weiss 
uncertain. : 





Part V.] JOHN THE BAPTIST AND ELIJAH. 359 


‘posed, necessary that the glory of the Lord’s Person might be 
plainly visible, for when He appeared to Paul (Acts xxvi. 13) it 
was midday, yet the light that shone around Him was brighter 
than the sun. Nor does the fact that the apostles slept, show 
that it was night, for their sleep seems to have been not so much 
natural sleep, the result of fatigue, as stupefaction caused by the 
marvellous apparition (Rev. i. 17). Nor does the fact that He 
was at that time engaged in prayer (Luke ix. 29) determine it. 
but as He did not descend from the mount till the day follow- 
ing, it is not probable that He ascended upon one day, was 
transfigured, remained after this during the night, and the next 
day returned to the disciples. It is most reasonable to suppose 
that the Lord went upon the mount at even, that He was trans- 
figured at the early dawn, and soon after descended 


The feast of the Transfiguration was not one of the very early 
feasts, though observed in the East as early as the 6th century; its 
general observance in the West was due to a bull of Pope Calixtus in 
1457. It was held on the 6th August. This time was selected, not 
as the date of the event, but for symbolical reasons. The Transfigur- 
ation showing forth the new life, the Eucharist on that day, it was 
said, ought to be celebrated with new wine, and hence the feast was 
put as early as the grapes were ripe. So early a period is inconsist- 
ent with the arrangements of most harmonists. (See Binterim, Denk., 
v. 1, 414 ff.) 


Autumn, 782. A.D. 29. 


Descending from the mount, Jesusexplains, in answer Mart. xvii. 10-13. 
to a question from the Apostles, how Elias must be the Marx ix. 11-13. 
forerunner of the Messiah. At the foot of the mountain, 
they meet the other Apostles surrounded by a multitude, Mart. xvii. 14-21. 
among whom are scribes questioning with them. The Marxix. 14-29. 
Lord heals a lunatic child, whom the Apostles have not LukE ix. 37-42. 
been able to heal. 

That Elijan must personally precede the Messiah, was one of 
the firmest and most undoubted convictions of the Jews; and the 
fact that the Baptist denied himself to be Elijah, was a circum- 
stance that went far to discredit his mission. If he was not 
Elijah, then Jesus could not be the Christ. If he was a prophet, 
and so all the people regarded him, it by no means followed that 
the Messiah must immediately follow him, for there might be 


300 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part V. 


many prophets who could act as forerunners, and yet Elijah 
alone should prepare His way. As we have seen, most of the 
people seem to have regarded Jesus Himself only as one of the 
prophetic forerunners of the Messiah. Educated in the current 
belief respecting the office of Elijah, the three apostles could 
not reconcile it with his appearance upon the mount. The Lord 
clears up this great difficulty by explaining to them the truth, so 
strange, that there should be two comings of the Messiah, and so 
two forerunners. Thus, the mystery of two Elijahs was cleared 
up so soon as the mystery of the two comings was known. It is 
remarked by Alford: “ The double allusion is only the assertion 
that the Elias (in spirit and power) who foreran our Lord’s first 
coming, was a partial fulfillment of the great prophecy, which 
announces the real Elias (the words of Malachi iv. 5, 6, will 
hardly bear any other than a personal meaning), who is to fore- 
run His greater and second coming.” 

The other apostles and disciples had remained at the foot of 
the mount, probably in some town or village, during the absence 
-of the Lord. In the morning, before He descended, a crowd 
had gathered around them, doubtless seeking Him; and in the 
crowd was a man who had brought his lunatic son to be healed. 
In the absence of Jesus he presented him to the disciples, who 
could not heal him. Among those present were certain scribes, 
who, apparently taking occasion from their ill success, began to 
question with them, and plainly with an evil intent. While 
they were disputing with the disciples, Jesus appeared, and was 
gladly received by the multitude. In answer to the father’s 
prayer He healed the child, after a severe rebuke of the general 
unbelief. The question afterward addressed to Him by the dis- 
ciples when alone: ‘‘ Why could not we cast him out ?” shows 
that they supposed the power to work miracles, which had 
been given the Twelve when they were sent forth upon their 
mission, was still continued to them. 


Autumn, 782. A.D. 29. 


Departing from the place where He healed the lunatic MARK ix, 30-32. 
child, He passes through Galilee, avoiding, as far as 


possible, public attention, and giving Himself to the MAmT, xvii. 22, 23 


instruction of His disciples. He repeats the announce- 
ment respecting His death and resurrection, but they LuKE ix. 43-45. 





Part V.] AMBITION OF THE APOSTLES. 361 


do not understand Him, and are afraid to ask. After 

some time thus spent they come to Capernaum. Peter, 

having declared to the tax-gatherer that his master is Mark ix. 33-50. 
liable to pay tribute, goes by Christ’s direction to the Matt. xvii. 24-27. 
sea, and finds the tribute-money in the mouth of a fish. 

At Capernaum He discourses to them of their equality as Marv. xviii. 1-35. 
brethren, and teaches them who shall be regarded as the LUKE ix. 46-50. 
greatest in the kingdom of Heaven. 


If the healing of the lunatic child was, as we have supposed, 
jn the neighborhood of Czxsarea Philippi, the Lord, crossing the 
Jordan near its sources, would enter the northern parts of Gal- 
ulee, and thus journey toward Capernaum. That this circuit 
was not for the purpose of public teaching, is expressly said by 
Mark (ix. 30): “And they departed thence, and passed through 
Galilee; and He would not that any man should know.” And 
the reason is added why He would not be known, “for He 
taught His disciples.” To instruct them more fully in the truths 
He had just opened to them of His approaching death and res- 
urrection, now occupied Him, and the presence of large crowds 
would have hindered Him in His purpose. How long this cir- 
cuit continued we do not know, nor what particular parts of 
Galilee He visited. The order of events 1s as follows: healing 
of the lunatic child; teaching as to the power of prayer; repe- 
tition of the prediction of His death and resurrection; dispute 
of the disciples by the way which should be the greatest; pay- 
ment of the tribute-money; teaching upon rank in the kingdom 
of heaven. Matthew's language (xvil. 22): “And while they 
abode in Galilee,” or more literally, ‘while they were going 
about in Galilee,” implies that some time was spent there.’ 
The continued inability of the disciples to understand the Lord’s 
words respecting His death and resurrection will surprise no 
one acquainted with the Messianic expectations of the Jews. 
They found it impossible to give a literal interpretation to His 
words, but they were afraid to ask Him what He meant. 

During these journeyings, and probably just before their 
arrival at Capernaum, a dispute had arisen among the disciples, 


1 But Tisch., W. and H., have cvotpedouevwy for avacrpepouevwy, meaning ** unit- 
ing or assembling themselves.” See T. G. Lex, and R. VY. margin; compare Acts 
xix. 40; xxiii. 12, and xxviii. 3. This seems to point to a gathering together for a depart 
ure from Galilee. 


16 


362 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part V. 


who should be the greatest in the kingdom. That He was about 
to reveal Himself as the Messiah and set up His kingdom, was a 
belief still firmly rooted in their minds, and which His mysteri- 
ous words about His death and resurrection seemed only to con- 
firm. They knew that some great event was approaching; what 
should it be but this long-hoped-for manifestation of the king- 
dom, when David’s son should sit on David’s throne? It, there- 
fore, naturally became now a question of deep personal interest 
to those most ambitious among them, who should fill the highest 
places under the new government. Perhaps the preference shown 
by Jesus to the three whom He took with Him upon the mount, 
and whom He had before specially honored, may have provoked 
envy and occasioned this dispute. It was not till after His arri- 
val at Capernaum that Jesus took notice of it. From Matthew 
(xviu. 1) it seems that the incident of the tribute-money had 
some connection with the strife, as some of the disciples coming 
to Him immediately after asked Him directly, “Who is the 
greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”’ In the most expressive 
“way, by means of a little child, He teaches them that only those 
hke little children, trustful, humble, unambitious, could even 
enter the heavenly kingdom. 

The tax demanded of Jesus was the temple tax, which all 
Jews were obliged to pay yearly (Ex. xxx. 13).? Some, as Wies- 
eler (Syn., 265; Beitrage, 108), have understood a civil tax payable 
to the Romans; but against this is the use of “ didrachma” for 
the tribute, a sum equal to the half shekel, the legal due. It is 
said by Schirer (II. i. 250): “The actual payment of the temple 
tax in the time of Christ is beyond doubt. . . . After the 
destruction of the temple it was converted into a Roman tax.” 
Besides this, the scope of the Lord’s reply shows that the temple 
tax is meant. As the Son of God, He was exempt from the 
payment to which others were bound for the support of ecclesi- 
astical services. Had it been a civil tax, this reply would not 
have been so directly to the purpose.* 


1 Greswell (ii. 462) attempts to show that the question in Matthew to Jesus was sub- 
sequent to His question to the Apostles in Mark (ix. 33) and in Luke (ix. 46). Some 
suppose, as Keil, that the others were displeased with the prominence given to 
Peter at his confession, at the Transfiguration, and in the matter of the tribute money. 

2 Josephus, Antiq., xviii. 9. 

% Meyer; Winer, ii. 588, note 3; Trench, Mir., 299; Alford; Ellicott, 229; Keil. 





Part V.] JESUS AND THE TEMPLE TAX. 363 


According to the Rabbins this temple tax was due between 
the 15th and 25th Adar.'| This would be about the time of the 
Passover. Greswell, however, maintains, upon rabbinic author 
ity, that it was paid at each of the three great feasts. We can- 
not then determine at what period of the year this demand of 
the tax-gatherer was made. If payment was legally due at the 
Passover, still it may not have actually been demanded till a 
later period. It may be that, being regarded as a prophet, up 
to this time no tax at all had been demanded of Jesus; and that 
now, at the instigation of His enemies, and for the first time, 
the demand was made.* Some suppose that the Rabbins were 
exempt from taxation; and that the question of the tax-gatherer 
shows that he had not previously collected it of the Lord; but 
others draw the exactly opposite conclusion, that He had 
been accustomed to pay it. That he should ask the question of 
Peter, may be explained from his prominent position as a disc1- 
ple, or because as a resident in the city he was well known. 
The inference of Bengel, from the fact that the Lord paid the 
tax for Himselt and Peter but for none other of the apostles, 
that the others were too young to be taxed, is wholly improbable 
and unnecessary. 


1 See Winer, i. 4. Caspari puts the payment at this time, but thinks the time of 
the collection of the temple tribute uncertain ; Godet, that the form of the Collector’s 
question supposes a payment which was at once voluntary and in arrears. 

2 See Lightfoot, in loco. 





PART Vi 


THE LAST JOURNEY FROM GALILEE, AND THE PERAN MINIS. 
TRY, TO THE ARRIVAL AT BETHANY. NOV., 782, TO APRIL, 783. 
A. D. 29, 30. 


The Lord’s Last Journey from Galilee. 


If the views that have already been presented in regard to 
the divisions of the Lord’s ministry are correct, we are in a posi- 
tion to judge rightly the statements of the Evangelists respect- 
ing the period that intervened between the departure from Gali- 
lee and the commencement of Passion Week, a period of about 
five months. In Galilee the Lord had accomplished His work. 
He had gathered about Him a considerable body of disciples (1 
Cor, xv. 6) who saw in Him, with more or less clearness of vis- 
ion, the Christ of the prophets and Son of the living God; and 
there was also a much larger number, who, unable to see in Him 
the Messiah of their hopes, still believed that He was a prophet 
sent from God, and heard His words with reverence. Besides, 
there must have been very many in all parts of the land, who 
had seen His works, and been more or less impressed by them, 
and yet had not felt the power of the truths He taught, and 
were waiting to see what His future course would be. His 
labors had by no means been in vain, although, as set forth in 
His own parable, but little of the seed He had so diligently 
sown fell into good ground. 

There are two circumstances that seemed to have marked, 
if they did not determine, the conclusion of the Galilean minis- 
try: first, that the Apostles, not to speak of other disciples, had 
learned, if imperfectly, the mystery of the Lord’s Person as the 
Son of God; second, that the machinations of His enemies at 
Jerusalem were arousing great hostility against Him in Galilee, 

(365) 





























366 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VI. — 


and making the further prosecution of His labors there full of — 
difficulty and danger. Both of these points demand attention. 

It needs no argument to show that the Lord’s ministry must 
primarily aim at the recognition, on the part of His disciples, of 
the great fact that in His Person “God was manifest in flesh.” 
Until they were able to rise above the ordinary Jewish concep- 
tions of the Messiah, and to see in Him the Son of God, He 
could open to them but little of the divine purpose. He could 
say nothing to them in distinct terms of His death, resurrection, 
and ascension. He must continue with them in person till, 
through their communion with Him, they should learn who He 
was, and what were His relations to the Father. And, as we 
have seen, when Peter, in the name of all the Apostles, made the 
confession that He was ‘ the Christ, the Son of the living God,” 
He for the first time announced to them His approaching death 
(Matt. xvi. 21). This announcement it was still very hard for 
them to understand, and perhaps the more that they now knew 
Him to be the Son of God; for how could men have power over 
’ Him, and what had death to do with Him? But, however 
imperfectly held, the germ of this great truth of His divinity 
was in their hearts, and they were now in a state to receive 
those teachings of Jesus which had reference to a heavenly 
kingdom, one corresponding to the Person of the King. Thus 
the foundation was laid of that high knowledge of God’s pur- 
pose in Him, which they needed in their subsequent work, and 
for which they were further prepared, first by the teachings of 
the Lord Himself after His resurrection, and then by the descent 
of the Spirit at Pentecost. 

The recognition on the part of His disciples of His divine 
Sonship, and the consequent announcement to them of His ap 
pioaching death, mark, therefore, the end of His Galilean min- 
istry. Yet a little time must elapse that these truths might get 
more firmly rooted in their faith ere the terrible hour of His suf- 
ferings should come. 

That, as His disciples grew in knowledge and faith, the dark- 
ness and bitterness of His enemies should increase, was but what 
Jesus Himself had foretold. All who loved the light gathered 
around Him, the true light. His words were the test by whi 


Part VI.] JESUS REJECTED BY THE GALILEANS. 367 


the thoughts of all hearts were revealed; and as His ministry 
was prolonged, and the truths He taught were more distinctly 
apprehended, the line of separation between His friends and His 
enemies became more and more marked. His popularity among 
the people seems to have been at its height about the time of the 
Baptist’s death, when, after the feeding of the five thousand, 
many wished to take Him by force and make Hima king. But 
the nature of His teachings soon repelled not a few who had 
been counted among His disciples (John vi. 66), and the Phari- 
sees at Capernaum and elsewhere in Galilee became daily more 
open and virulent in their opposition. Gradually the great 
crowds that at first thronged around Him diminished; the nov- 


-elty of His first appearance passed away; His calls to repentance 


were by most disregarded; His miracles, wonderful as they were, 
were not of a kind to satisfy the populace that He was the 
expected Messiah; His enemies were active and unscrupulous in 
representing Him as a blasphemer ; His nearest and most trusted 
disciples were uninfluential and obscure men, publicans, fisher- 
men, and the like. It is not, therefore, in itself at all strange 
that there was not in Galilee at the end of His ministry any 
general belief in His Messianic character. Against those cities 
which He had often visited, and where He had wrought many 
works, He pronounced a fearful judgment. Thus, in Galilee, as 
in Judea, Jesus was despised and rejected of men. 

But the Lord did not yet forsake His people. He would make 
one more, and a final appeal. Up to this time He had not 
openly and expressly declared Himself to be the Messiah, either 
in Judea or in Galilee. He had left the Jews to judge for 
themselves from His teachings and His works, who He was. 
But they did not for the most part discern Him. Their precon- 
ceived opinions of the Messiah and of His work prevented 
them from recognizing Him in the obscure, humble, peaceful 
Galilean, mighty as were His miracles and sublime as were His 
teachings. If the Messiah, why did He not establish His king- 
dom? Yet, while thus not answering to the popular apprehen- 
sions of the Messiah, He seemed in His discourses to claim 
higher rank and power than even the Messiah could claim, a 
mysterious relationship to God which was blasphemous. Thus, 


368 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VI. 


on the one side, His silence respecting His Messiahship and His 
inactivity caused many, who were astonished at His works and 
words, to look upon Him only as a prophet; and on the other, 
His repeated allusions to His divine Sonship drew upon Him 
the enmity of many as a blasphemer. 

But while it was the will of God that His people should be 
left at first to recognize His Son by His words and works, and 
thus to test them, yet He willed also that there should be borne 
clear and full testimony to His Messianic character, that all 
might be without excuse. Such testimony John the Baptist had 
borne; and to this was now added that of all His disciples, who 
in the very fact of their discipleship proclaimed Him to be the 
Messiah. He had not indeed permitted the Apostles to proclaim 
Him by name (Matt. xvi. 20), because He then for their sake 
avoided publicity. Had they done so, such an announcement 
made authoritatively by those nearest Him, would at once have 
rallied around Him all those cherishing the current Messianic 
hopes, and have cast the Apostles back into that lower region 
of thought and feeling, from which He was endeavoring to lift 
them. But the time had now come when His Messianic char- 
acter must be publicly asserted, that the whole nation might 
know that He was the Christ, the Son of David, the King of 
Israel; and if rejected, He must be rejected as such. The peo- 
ple should not be left in doubt whether He asserted Himself to 
be more than a simple prophet, or, like the Baptist, a forerunner 
of the Messiah. He will go up to Jerusalem; for if it cannot 
be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem, how much more is 
this true of the Son of God? and He will go with every cireum- 
stance of publicity, to be received or finally rejected by those 
whom God had set to be the heads of the people. It must be a 
national act, and must not be done in ignorance. In Judwa, He 
had testified of Himself as the Son of God, but in vain. Now 
He will return thither, and His disciples shall bear witness to 
Him, if, perchance, the nation will hear them. To this end His 
messengers shall go before Him into every place where He de- 
signed to go, and announce the kingdom of God at hand in the 
Person of the King. 

Here, then, we find the grand peculiarity of the Lord’s last 








Part VI.] FINAL DEPARTURE FROM GALILEE. 369 


journey to Jerusalem. As He knew, and had declared to His 
Apostles, He went up to die; but to the Jewish people the issue of 
His journey was not known, and the secret purpose of God did 
not hinder this last appeal to them to repent and receive their 
Lord. 


Before entering upon the details of this last journey, it will be 
well to consider its general features. To reconcile the various stute- 
ments of the Evangelists respecting it, is one of the most difficult 
tasks that meet the harmonist. That we may see clearly the points 
of difference, it will be well to examine the statements of each 
Eyangelist separately. 

1. The time of the final departure. As John gives the most dis 
tinct notices of time, we begin with his narrative. 

About the middle of October 782 (A. D. 29) the Lord goes up 
to the Feast of Tabernacles (John vii. 10). As to the time of this 
feast and the manner of its observance, and the Lord’s words and 
work during it, we have already spoken. He went up, ‘‘not openly, 
but as it were in secret,” and continued in Jerusalem to the end of 
the feast. Whether He then left the city, is not said, and we find 
Him there some two months later at the Feast of Dedication in 
December. After this feast, His enemies seeking to arrest Him, ‘‘ He 
escaped out of their hand, and went away again beyond Jordan unto 
the place where John at first baptized, and there He abode” (x. 40). 
How long He abode here is not said, but after an interval, longer or 
shorter, He was called to go up to Bethany to see Lazarus about to 
die (xi. 1). After the resurrection of Lazarus He did not return at 
once beyond Jordan; and His enemies becoming more hostile, ‘‘ He 
walked no more openly among the Jews, but went thence unto a 
country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there 
continued with His disciples” (xi. 54). From Ephraim a little before 
the Passover of April 783 (80 A. D.), He went up to that feast by way 
of Bethany (xi. 55; xii. 1). 

We have thus in John a chronological outline of the chief events 
of the last six months of the Lord’s life and ministry. He was in 
Galilee, and went thence to Jerusalem, and was in that city in Octo- 
ber and again in December. Afterward He was beyond Jordan, 
where John at first baptized, and from there went to Bethany close 
by Jerusalem. From Bethany He went to Ephraim, and from 
Ephraim went up a little later to the Passover. He was thus 
present at three consecutive feasts, and the time of these feasts is 
known — Tabernacles in October, Dedication in December, 782, and 
Passover in April, 783; but where He was in the interval from 

16* 


310 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part IV. 


absent upon their mission does not appear. Wieseler. followed 
by Tischendorf, would limit it to a single day; Ellicott, to two 
days; Edersheim, to two weeks; Krafft extends it to several 
months; Greswell makes them to have been sent upon their 
ministry in February, and to have returned in March, an inter- 
val of near two months. That they were engaged in their labors 
several weeks at least, is plainly implied in the terms of their 
commission; and is confirmed by the brief statements of their 
actual labors. It is said in Luke ix. 6: ‘They went throughout 
the villages.” (See Godet, in loco: ‘They went through the 
country in general, staying in every little town.”) Their mission 
must have been of some considerable duration. 

The same question meets us in regard to the commission 
given to the Twelve as recorded by Matthew, that meet us in 
his record of the Sermon on the Mount. Is it a summary 
of all the instructions the Lord gave them respecting their 
work, instructions given on different occasions? (So Ellicott, 
194.) Or since we find some parts of it in Mark and Luke 
in different relations, did He repeat them as He judged fitting ? 
Perhaps both may be true. It is wholly credible, that, in pre- 
paring them for their future work, He should often have spoken 
of the way in which it should be conducted, and of the oppo- 
sition and perils which they would meet. But it is apparent 
upon its face that their commission had a far larger scope than 
of their first temporary work under it.’ It had prospective 
reference to their larger work after the Lord’s ascension, and 
also in some measure to all the missionary work of the Church 
till His return. Some directions in it are plainly temporary, as 
those not to visit the heathen or Samaritans, and to make no 
provision of money or clothing. The prediction of persecutions 
and scourgings, on the other hand, had at this time no fulfill- 
ment. It is on this ground that some make a division of its 
contents, applying verses 5 to 15 to this first mission (compare 
Mark vi. 8-12, Luke ix. 1-6), and the remainder to their future 
labors. It is said by Alexander, that “the charge relating to 
the first mission ends with verse 15, and with verse 16 begins 
a more general and prospective charge relating to their subse- 
quent Apostolic labors.” 


1 So Jones, Notes on Scripture, 100; Stier, ii. 2; Eders., i. 640. 


Part IV.] THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE. 311 


With the correctness of this or other divisions we are not 
here concerned; what is of importance to us is the light which 
this commission casts upon the relations of the people to the 
Lord. If it was all spoken at this time, it was a plain declara- 
tion to the Twelve that they, going out in His name, would 
meet not merely a temporary outburst of hostility, but the per- 
sistent and bitter enmity of those to whom they should go: “Ye 
shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake.” Yet they would 
find some who would receive them, some “sons of peace.” 
That they did not understand the large significance of the Lord’s 
words is clear, for their conception of the future was very con- 
fused, and the thought of a permanent separation from Him had 
not yet entered their minds. His declarations respecting their 
persecutions must have been in striking contrast to the opinions 
the Apostles were yet cherishing respecting the reign of the 
Messiah, and His general reception by the people. By speaking 
of their sufferings and persecutions, He announced, by implica- 
tion, His own sufferings and rejection. 

There are two aspects in which this mission of the Twelve 
may be regarded: First, as that of heralds proclaiming wherever 
they went that the Kingdom of God is at hand. It has been 
questioned whether the Lord’s purpose in sending them was to 
draw attention to Himself, proclaiming by them that the Mes- 
siah had come and was among them, or to announce the approach 
of the Messianic kingdom, to call to repentance, and to confirm 
their message by their miracles. But we can scarce doubt that 
their commission was rather that of heralds than of preachers. 
They could not themselves at this time have understood suffi- 
ciently the nature of the kingdom they proclaimed to be able 
to teach others. Plumptre zn loco, holds that they were to go 
as heralds: “The two envoys of the kingdom were to enter into 
a town or village, and there standing in the gate, to announce 
that the kingdom had come near, and when this had drawn 
crowds to listen,.to call men to repentance, without which they 
could not enter it.” But, as said by Pressensé, it is most proba- 
ble that their mission did not ‘go beyond a general announce- 
ment that the Messiah had appeared.” It was not that they 
should be teachers of the people, but that they should bring 
them to their Lord that He might teach them. 


372 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VL — 


either immediately or sometime in the interval between this feast and 
Dedication (John x. 22); 2d, after Dedication (John x. 39); 3d, after 
the sojourn in Ephraim (John xi. 54). Each of these times has its 
advocates. Which of these is to be preferred will be later considered. 

It will help to give clearer conceptions of the points before us, if 
we examine several differing arrangements of the events from the 
Feast of Tabernacles to the arrival at Bethany six days before the last 
Passover. We have here a period of six months, which may be 
divided into two: from Tabernacles to Dedication, two months; from 
Dedication to last Passover, four mouths. 

I. Arrangements which make no return to Galilee after the Feast 
of Tabernacles in October, His Galilean ministry being completed. 

Robinson: 1. The Lord goes up from Galilee to Tabernacles (Luke 
ix. 51, John vii. 10). On the way heals ten lepers (Luke xvii. 11). 
2. After the feast, remains in Juda; visits the house of Martha 
(Luke x. 38); the Seventy, sent out before He left Galilee, now return 
to Him at Jerusalem; heals the blind man there, and teaches. 3. 
In Jerusalem at Dedication. 4. Goes thence beyond Jordan where 
John baptized (John x. 40). 5. Goes up to Bethany to raise Laza- 
rus. 6. Retires to Ephraim. 7. Leaves Ephraim to go to last 
Passover by way of Perea and Jericho. It is this journey from 
Ephraim which is spoken of by Matt. xix. 1, Mark x. 1; and during 
it most of the events (Luke xiii. 10 to xviii. 35) took place. 

Wieseler : 1. Goes up to Tabernacles (Luke ix. 51, John vii. 10), 
on the way sends the Seventy, and visits the house of Martha. 2. 
After the feast, remains till Dedication in Judwa. 3. Goes to Jeru- 
salem to Dedication. 4. Goes to Perea where John baptized. 5. 
Goes to Bethany to raise Lazarus (Luke xiii. 22 to xvii. 10). 6. 
Retires to Ephraim. 7. Leaves Ephraim for last Passover, and on 
the way heals the ten lepers. This is the same journey as Matt. xix. 
1, and Mark x. 1, and Luke xvii. 11. 

Gardiner: 1. Goes up to Tabernacles (Matt. xix. 1, Mark x. 1, 
Luke ix. 51, John vii. 10); unable to pass through Samaria, He 
enters Perea, and on the way sends the Seventy; heals the ten lepers; 
visits Martha. 2. After the feast, returns to Perea and teaches 
(Luke x. 17 to xiii. 17). 3. Goes up to Dedication. 4, After Dedica- 
tion, retires beyond Jordan (Luke xiii. 22 to xvii. 10). 5. Goes up to 
Bethany to raise Lazarus. 6. Retires to Ephraim. 7. Goes up to 
Jerusalem to last Passover by Jericho (Luke xvii. 20 to xviii. 34). 

IJ. Arrangements which make one return to Galilee after the 
Feast of Tabernacles. 

(a) After Tabernacles and before Dedication. 





Part VI] TIME OF THE LAST JOURNEY. 370 


Ebrard: 1: The Lord returns to Galilee. 2. Journeys to Tyre and 
Sidon; comes to Decapolis; feeds the four thousand. 3. Goes to 
Cxsarea Philippi; the Transfiguration; returns to Capernaum. 4. 
Goes up to Dedication (Luke ix. 51, John x. 22). 5. Retires beyond 
Jordan (Matt. xix. 1, Mark x. 1, John x. 40). 6. Goes up to raise 
Lazarus. 7. Returns to Ephraim. 8. Journeys to Jerusalem by Jer- 
icho. f 

Lichtenstein : 1. The Lord returns to Galilee. 2. Goes to Czesa~ 
rea Philippi, is transfigured, returns to Capernaum. 38. Leaves Gali- 
lee and goes by way of Samaria (Luke ix. 51); heals the ten lepers on 
the border of Samaria and Galilee; crosses the Jordan into Perea; 
ministers there, and sends the Seventy. 4. Goes up to Dedication. 
5. Returns to Perea. 6. Goes to raise Lazarus. 7. Sojourns in 
Ephraim; and goes from there by Jericho to last Passover. 

It will be noted that these two arrangements differ in this: that 
the first puts both the journey to Tyre and Sidon and that to 
Czxsarea Philippi after the Lord’s return to Galilee; the last, only 
that to Cxsarea Philippi. 

@) After Dedication. 

Bengel: 1. The Lord goes to Galilee by way of Perea, visits 
Cxsarea Philippi, is transfigured, returns to Capernaum. 2. Leaves 
Capernaum and goes by way of Samaria, crosses the Jordan into 
Persea. from Perzea sends the Seventy, remains there preaching and 
teaching (Luke x. 25 to xviii. 14). 3. Goes up to raise Lazarus. 4. 
Retires to Ephraim. 5. Goes up by Jericho to last Passover. 

McClellan: 1. The Lord returns to Capernaum, goes to Cesarea 
Philippi, is transfigured, returns to Capernaum. 2. Goes through 
lower Galilee and along the confines of Samaria and Galilee to Perza, 
and there teaches. 3. Goes up to raise Lazarus. 4. Retires to 
Ephraim. 5. From Ephraim returns to east side of the Jordan, and 
goes to last Passover by Jericho. 

(ec) After the sojourn in Ephraim. 

Pound: 1. Goes from Ephraim through Samaria into Galilee 
(iuke xvii. 11). 2. Goes into Perea (Matt. xix. 13 to xx. 28). 3. 
Goes up to Jerusalem by Jericho. 

Il. Arrangements which make two returns to Galilee after 
Tabernacles. One return after Tabernacles, and another after Dedi- 
cation. 

Caspari: 1. The Lord returns to Capernaum after Tabernacles, 
from there sends the Seventy. 2. Goes up to Dedication, visits 
Martha. 3. After Dedication, goes into Perea (Matt. xix. 1, Mark 
x.1). 4. Goesup toraise Lazarus. 5. Retiresto Ephraim. 6. Jour 


374 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part V1. 


neys through the confines of Samaria to Galilee, heals the ten lepers, 
and goes to Jerusalem by way of Jericho. 

Greswell: 1. The Lord returns to Capernaum after Tabernacles (of 
what He did at this time we have no account). 2. Goes up to Dedi- 
cation. 3. Goes into Perwa. 4. Goes up to raise Lazarus. 5. 
Retires to Ephraim. 6. Goes into Galilee by way of Samaria, sends 
out the Seventy, goes to Capernaum where the Seventy rejoin Him. 
7. Leaves Capernaum (Luke ix. 51), and goes up by Jericho to last 
Passover. 

Edersheim, who puts no return to Galilee after Tabernacles, makes 
the Lord, after leaving Ephraim, to have passed on the border line 
of Galilee and Samaria, and to have healed the ten lepers. 

In choosing among these several arrangements there is much diffi- 
culty; it must be a matter of probabilities, and it will be necessary to 
examine them somewhat in detail. 

Arrangement which denies any return to Galilee after the Feast of 
Tabernacles.—(The fact that the Lord, after He left Ephraim, may 
have passed over the border into Galilee, is not important if He did 
not go there for any act of ministry.) If, then, His Galilean work 
was completed when He went up to Tabernacles in October, there 
_ Temained a period of two months to Dedication, and one of four 
months after it. How was this time from Tabernacles to Dedication 
spent? According to McClellan, in seclusion; according to Robin- 
son, He taught in Judea and Jerusalem; according to Gardiner, He 
went to Persea and taught; according to Pound, He taught both in 
South Judea and in Perea. 

Against the supposition that He spent this interval in Jerusalem 
or in Judea, is the statement (John vii. 1) that ‘‘ He would not walk 
in Jewry because the Jews sought to kill Him.” The hatred of the 
Jews did not permit Him to remain in Judea to teach; and on this 
ground He appears to have passed by several of the feasts. It is 
highly improbable, then, that after the reception He had met at the 
Feast of Tabernacles, when a formal attempt was made to arrest Him, 
and the populace had taken up stones to stone Him, He should have 
remained in Judea till the next feast, exposed to their machinations,’* 

If the Lord remained after the feast to carry on a work in Judea, 
of what nature was it? Was it a repetition of His earlier work of 
witness to the rulers? There is no hint of this, and they had long 
since arrayed themselves against Him. Was it a repetition of His 
work in Galilee, having for its end the gathering of disciples? There 
is no hint of this. It is not said that He went about teaching and 
preaching in the synagogues; all His public activity, so far as re- 





1 Luthardt. ii. 74; Lichtenstein, 299. 


Part VI.] LAST MINISTRY IN GALILEE. 375 


corded, both at this feast and at Dedication, was in the temple. At 
this time the Twelve were doubtless with Him, for at such a critical 
period He would not be separated from them; and their presence would 
have aroused in still greater degree the anger of the rulers, and 
prompted them to His immediate arrest while still in their power. 
If, then, for these reasons we cannot believe that the Lord carried on 
a Galilean ministry in Jerusalem and Judea, and if He could not have 
remained so long in seclusion unmolested, we must either hold that 
He began at this time His ministry in Perea, or returned to Galilee. 
That He did not go to Perea from Jerusalem, appears from the state- 
ment of Matthew xix. 1, that He went from Galilee to the region 
beyond Jordan. We conclude then, that the Lord had not finished 
His workin Galilee when He went up to the Feast of Tabernacles, 
and that He returned soon after it to Galilee. 

Return after Tabernacles. — Accepting this return, we ask, What 
was the Lord’s work in Galilee after His return? Here there is not 
agreement among harmonists. The question is, where to find in the 
Synoptists a place to insert this journey to Tabernacles, and where 
to find in John a place to insert a return to Galilee. Of the two 
possible arrangements, one puts the journey to Tabernacles just before 
the circuit through Tyre and Sidon (in Matt. xv. after verse 20, in 
Mark vii. after verse 23). We thus obtain the following order: 
1. The Lord returns from Tabernacles to Galilee. 2. Makes a circuit 
through Tyre and Sidon to the Decapolis. 3. Heals the man with 
an impediment in his speech; feeds the four thousand. 4. Goes to 
Dalmanutha; goes to Bethsaida, heals a blind man. 5. Goes to 
Cesarea Philippi; Transfiguration. 6. Returns to Capernaum; pays 
temple tax. 7. Final departure from Galilee. 

If we grant that there is nothing, so far as the language of 
Matthew and Mark is concerned, that forbids us to insert this 
journey to Tabernacles before the journey to Tyre and Sidon, yet 
there is a very strong objection from the fact that so little is recorded 
of the Lord’s ministry during the period —some six months — from 
the Passover (John vi. 4) to the Feast of Tabernacles following in 
October. Matthew (xv. 1, ff.) and Mark (vii. 2, ff.) give the Lord’s dis- 
course to the Pharisees about eating with unwashen hands, which 
was soon after the feeding of the five thousand; and then speak of 
the circuit in Tyre and Sidon. We must, therefore, conclude, either 
that this cireuit was before Tabernacles, or that several months passed 
of which the Synoptists say nothing; and the former is far the more 
probable. ' 

If, then, we cannot put the journey to Tabernacles before the 


376 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VL 


circuit in Tyre and Sidon, can we put it later? Such later period we 
find just before the circuit through Cesarea Philippi, and inserting 
it in Matthew xvi. after verse 12, and in Mark viii. after verse 26; 
we obtain the following order: 1. The Lord returns from Taber- 
nacles to Galilee. 2. Goes up to Cesarea Philippi; the Transfigura- 
tion. 3. Returns to Capernaum, pays the temple tax. 4. Final 
departure from Galilee. 

That this journey to Tabernacles may be inserted in Matthew at 
the place mentioned, is plain, there being nothing in the narrative to 
intimate strict chronological sequence. But in Mark such sequence 
is affirmed by many. His words are: ‘‘ And Jesus went out and His 
disciples into the towns of Cesarea Philippi.” The phrase ‘‘ went 
out ” — é&\ev— it is said, refers to His departure from the place just 
before mentioned — Bethsaida (verse 22); and as this was on the east 
of the Jordan, the inference is that He now went immediately up on 
the east side to Cesarea Philippi. But it is observed by Alexander, 
in loco: ‘‘ Neither Evangelist assigns the date of this transaction, 
even by connecting it expressly with tne previous context as imme- 
diately successive. Into the towns dependent upon this important 
city, Jesus came with His disciples, when or whence is not recorded. 

~* Went out’ throws no light upon this point, as it may refer to any 
going forth for any purpose, even from a private house, or from 
Capernaum, as the center of His operations, on a new official circuit.” 

We may, then, without violence, insert after the miracle at Beth- 
saida the journey to Tabernacles. The Lord returns from Bethsaida 
to Capernaum —an hour’s walk— where He probably meets His 
brethren (John vii. 3), and from thence goes up to Jerusalem. 

In all these questions Luke gives us no help, since he says nothing 
of the circuit in Tyre and Sidon, of the feeding of the four thousand, 
of the journey to Cxsarea; but passes at once from the feeding of 
the five thousand to the confession of Peter and the Transfiguration, 
and without any mention of the region where these occurred (Luke 
ix. 18). 

But the point remains; Where in John’s narrative can we insert 
this return to Galilee? It must be inch. x. between verses 21 and 22. 
There seems to be no valid objection to this, as there is an interval of 
two months which this Evangelist passes over in silence (see Godet, 
in loco). 

(In former editions of this book, the order was followed which 
makes the Lord to have returned to Galilee after Tabernacles, but 
only to send the Seventy, His ministry there having been completed. 
A more careful consideration leads to the conclusion that He went to — 





Part V1.] TIME OF RETURN TO GALILEE. 377 


Tabernacles before His Galilean ministry was ended, and that He 
returned to complete it.) 

Return after Dedication.— But many affirm that the Lord did not 
go to Galilee after Tabernacles, but later, after Dedication. This 
order must therefore be examined. In this case we meet, first, the 
improbability that He remained all the interval from Tabernacles to 
Dedication in Jerusalem or Judza. This has been already spoken of. 

A second objection is found in the difficulty of inserting a journey 
to Galilee after Dedication in the narrative of John. The only place 
for it is in ch. x. after verse 39: ‘‘They sought again to take Him, but 
He escaped out of their hand, and went away again beyond Jordan.” 
(Iu the R. Y.: ‘‘ He went forth out of their hand.” Verse 40 begins 
a new paragraph. So in Greek text of Tisch., W. and H., and in 
several translations.) It is certainly possible to put here after His 
escape from Jerusalem a journey to Galilee, a ministry there of some 
duration, and a return to the Jordan; but the scope of the narrative 
is against it. 

Those who hold this order are not agreed as to the Lord’s work 
after He returned to Galilee; but most, as Stier, say that the circuit 
to Cxsarea Philippi then took place, the return to Capernaum, and 
the final departure to the last Passover. But so late a departure 
increases the difficulty of explaining the circuitous route, the Lord’s 
visit to Martha at Bethany, and His presence later in ‘‘the midst of 
Samaria and Galilee.” 

Return after sojourn in EHphraim.—Again, as we have seen, some 
hold that the Lord returned to Galilee at a much later period — after 
the sojourn in Ephraim (John xi. 54) —to complete His ministry. 
The chief representative of this order is Greswell, who says (ii. 529), 
that ‘‘all the notices in Luke from ix. 51 to xvii. 11 belong to the 
course and continuance of one and the same journey, begun at 
Ephraim and terminated at Jerusalem, but visiting in the interim 
Galilee and Perza also.” This is the final departure from Galilee, 
and is that mentioned in Matt. xix. 1; Mark x. 1; Luke xvii. 11; and 
it is on this journey that He was accompanied by the women (Luke 
xxiii. 49). Edersheim agrees with Greswell in putting a return to 
Galilee after the sojourn in Ephraim; but it was not to resume His 
ministry there, only to meet His disciples and go up with them to 
the Passover. 

But against this late return to Galilee there are strong objections. 
The retirement of the Lord to Ephraim was to escape the notice of 
His enemies, who had determined to put Him to death. It was 
clearly chosen as a hiding place, because they ‘‘had given a com- 


378 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VI. 


mandment,' that if any knew where He were, they should show it 
that they might take Him”; and we are told that ‘‘ He continued there 
with His disciples.” We cannot, therefore, suppose that He would 
engage in any public labors which would draw to Him the atten- 
tion of His enemies; rather He would devote Himself to the instruc- 
tion of those with Him — perhaps the Apostles only. As we do not 
know how soon after the Feast of Dedication the Lord went to 
Bethany to raise Lazarus, nor how soon after that resurrection He went 
to Ephraim, so we do not know how lony was His sojourn there. 
The impression made by the narrative is that He left Ephraim only a 
short time before the Passover (verse 55): ‘‘ Now the feast of the 
Passover was nigh at hand.” This may mean that the feast was 
nigh at hand when Jesus went to Ephraim, or that He left Ephraim 
when it was nigh; but in either case it allows no time for a journey 
to Galilee, and for all the events which preceded His final departure 
from that province. 

We thus seem to have sufficient grounds to reject the order ad- 
vocated by Greswell, Sepp, and Caspari. The first of these puts the 
resurrection of Lazarus in December, very soon after the Feast of 
Dedication, the flight to Ephraim the last of December, the sojourn 
there a month, or to the end of January, and then a departure to 
Galilee. (So in substance Sepp and Caspari.) But if the Lord went 
to Galilee at the end of January, and was for some weeks active there, 
and sent the Seventy from Capernaum; how could those who went 
up from Galilee to the Passover have been ignorant of His work there, 
and of the sending of the Seventy, and that He was already following 
them on His way to Jerusalem — to say nothing of the ignorance of 
the chief priests and Pharisees? (John xi. 55-57.) 

There is still another objection to this order. If the words of 
Luke (ix. 51): ‘‘ He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem,” are 
applied, as by Greswell, to His departure from Ephraim, and Ephraim 
was in Judea on its northern border, the first stage of His journey 
was not southward to Jerusalem, but northward to Galilee. But if 
going from Jerusalem and not to it, why did the Samaritans refuse to 
receive Him? Greswell gives the very insufficient answer, that they 
knew, indeed, that He was journeying toward Galilee, but knew also 
that He was ‘‘ to commence a public tour from there ” back to Jerusa- 
lem. But the statement is perfectly plain that they refused to receive 
Him because He was going up to Jerusalem. And how did they 
know what His intentions were as to His return ? 


1 Tisch., W. and H. read évroAas, ‘‘ commandments,’’ perhaps orders sent to differ- 
ent parts of the land. See M. and M., in loco. 





Part VI.] THE LAST JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM. 379 


We must reject, then, the arrangement which denies any return to 
Galilee after Tabernacles; and of those which affirm such a return 
either after Tabernacles and before Dedication, or after Dedication, 
or after the sojourn in Ephraim, we accept the first as most probable, 
and put the final departure from Galilee a few days before the Feast 
of Dedication. 


THE LAST JOURNEY. 


Let us now note the general features of this last journey — its 
starting point and goal, its continuity, by whom the Lord was at- 
tended, the mission of the Seventy, the crowds that gathered to Him, 
the opposition of His enemies, and the character of his teachings. 

Its starting point and goal.—It is generally admitted that the start- 
ing point was Capernaum; the goal was Jerusalem. Two ways were 
open to Him: through Samaria, or along the Jordan valley; and He 
took the former. To reach Samaria from Capernaum, He must pass 
through lower Galilee on its eastern side. The Samaritan village 
which refused to receive His messengers was probably one on the 
frontier; the ground of rejection being that His face was as though 
He would go to Jerusalem. Whither did He then turn? We are 
told simply that ‘‘they went to another village.” Was this village 
in Samaria or Galilee?' Assuming that it was in Galilee, what was 
the Lord’s further course? Certainly He did not turn back to Gali- 
lee, but kept on His course, either southward into Samaria, or east- 
ward along the border line of the two provinces, so crossing the Jor- 
dan into Perea; from whence when the time came, He might go up 
to Jerusalem. 

Tis continuity.—Was this last journey continuous? By this is net 
meant that He went forward every day nearer and nearer to Jeru- 
salem; but that, having ended His work in Galilee, and Jerusalem 
being the goal of His journey, all His steps were determined by this 
chief end. It is true that in Luke we find few data as to times or 
places. The first local notice is that of ‘‘a certain village” (x. 38), 
where He visits Martha; then we read of His being in ‘‘a certain 
place” where He gave the disciples a form of prayer (xi.1). Still 
later we have the general statement that ‘‘ He went through the cities 
and villages, teaching, and journeying towards Jerusalem” (xiii. 22); 
and the more particular one, ‘‘and it came to pass as He came to 
Jerusalem that He passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee” 
(xvil. 11). A little before His arrival at Jericho ‘‘ He took unto Him 


1 Most commentators say in Galilee: Meyer, Godet, Edersheim; contra, Bleek; un- 
decided, Keil; this point will be further spoken of when considering the mission of the 


Seventy. ES 


380 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VL. 


the twelve, and said unto them: ‘Behold we go up to Jerusalem?” 
(xviii. 31). Another note of place is given in the words of the Phari- 
sees: ‘‘Get thee out, and depart hence” (xiii. 31), showing that He 
must have been at that time in Herod’s dominions, in Galilee or 
Perea. But although we have so few data of time or place, yet 
all these statements agree in this, that the Lord, enlightened by the 
Father, and knowing that His decease should be accomplished at 
Jerusalem, and during the Passover, so directed His steps that He 
might fulfill His Father’s will. 

We must, then, regard this last journey as a continuous one, with a 
definite purpose and a progressive movement beginning in Galilee and 
ending in Jerusalem. Thus it is said by Meyer: ‘“‘It is to be con- 
ceived of as a slow circuit whose final goal is Jerusalem.” 

The Lord’s attendants.— By whom was the Lord attended on this 
journey? Certainly by the Apostles, and perhaps by the other dis- 
ciples. It is said by Godet that ‘‘Jesus carried with Him to Judwa 
all the following of devoted believers which He had found in Gali- 
lee”; but this is too broad. Was He also attended by the women 
spoken of by Matthew (xxvii. 51), ‘“‘ which followed Him from 
Galilee, ministering unto Him”? This is questioned by Edersheim 
(ii. 327), who affirms, that ‘‘any lengthened journeying, and for an 
indefinite purpose, would have been quite contrary to Jewish man- 
ners”; and he suggests that their accompanying Him was not till 
He left Ephraim, and went to Galilee to meet the festal bands going 
up to the Paschal Feast. But the words of Luke (viii. 2, 8), and of 
Mark (xv. 41), speaking of the women, who, when He was in Galilee, 
followed Him and ministered unto Him, serve to show that they were 
with Him at other times than in journeys to the feasts. And some of 
the women were doubtless the wives or mothers of the apestles or 
disciples (1 Cor. ix. 5). It is not, then, improbable that His mother 
and other female relatives, and female relatives of the disciples, and 
probably some of those whom He had healed, as Mary Magdalene, 
went with Him when He finally left Galilee. 

The sending of the Seventy.— But the sending of the Seventy 
before Him is, as has been said, the most marked feature of this last 
journey. ‘‘After these things the Lord appointed other Seventy also, 
and sent them two and two before His face into every city and place 
whither He Himself would come” (Luke x. 1). What was His pur 
pose in sending them before Him? When and from what place did 
He send them? Where did they fulfill their mission? And when 
and where did they return to Him ? 

Their commission.— The end for which they were sent forth was, 
as expressed in their commission (verse 9), to proclaim ‘*The king- 





Part VI] MISSION OF THE SEVENTY. 381 


dom of God is come nigh unto you”; and as an evidence of this, to 
heal the sick in such cities as should receive them. What was the 
significance of this proclamation? Was it merely the repetition of 
what had been preached by the Baptist, by the Lord, and by the 
apostles: ‘‘ The kingdom of heaven is at hand”? Did it not, rather, 
derive a peculiar character from the relation in which the mission of 
the Seventy stood to His last journey? The apostles had earlier been 
sent ‘‘to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” without distinction 
(Matthew x. 6); but these were directed to go only to those “cities 
and places whither He Himself would come.” The Seventy were to 
go before Him as His heralds or forerunners; and it seems clear that 
they did not merely announce in general terms that the kingdom of 
God was at hand, but made a specific mention of Jesus who was to 
follow them asthe King. They were to give notice that the Mes- 
siah was coming, and that in those places only which He had chosen. 
What determined the Lord’s choice of those cities and places we are 
not told, but we may believe that He went only to those where His 
heralds found reception. ‘‘ The Twelve apostles were sent to declare 
the coming of the kingdom, these the coming of the King.” (Light- 
foot, in loco.) Jesus was soon to follow them on His way to the Holy 
City; and thus the eyes of all who heard them were turned to Him, 
not asa great Rabbi or Teacher, or as a Prophet, but as the long- 
promised Son of David and Redeemer of Israel. 

Time and place of their sending.— Such being the purpose of the 
mission, when and from what place were the Seventy sent? The time 
of their sending depends upon the time of the final departure from 
Galilee, for all agree that it was a little before or after that departure 
that the Lord sent them. The place from which they were sent, 
whether from Galilee, or from some point on the way to Jerusalem, 
or from the city itself, is clearly connected with the time. We may 
give the following classification of opinions: 1. From Capernaum, 
and before going up to the Feast of Tabernacles. Robinson, New- 
come, Pound. 2. After the departure from Galilee, and on the way 
to Tabernacles. Lightfoot, Wieseler, Friedlieb, Gardiner, Eders- 
heim. 3. In the interval between Tabernacles and Dedication. (a.) 
From Jerusalem, Krafft; (b.) from Judea, Ellicott; (c.) from Galilee, 
Caspari, Farrar, Neander, Pressensé; (d.) from Perea, Bengel. 4. 
After sojourn at Ephraim, and from Capernaum, Greswell.’ 

Whither sent.— Whither were the Seventy sent? It may be said 
that they were to precede Him all the way to Jerusalem, and there- 


1 McClellan (453 ff.), who puts the sending of the Seventy soon after the sending of 
the Twelve (Luke ix. 1), and brings it into no relation with the last journey, thinks the 
field of their mission to have been Galilee; so, apparently, Calvin. 


382 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VI. 


fore would fulfill their mission in each province through which He 
passed till He reached the city. We may accept this, and yet ask 
after the more special field of their activity. Was it Galilee?! It 
is, indeed, not unlikely, if we suppose the Lord to have sent them 
from Capernaum, that they preceded Him through lower Galilee, and 
announced His coming; but there is no mention of any Galilean 
town as now visited by Him. It is most probable that the woes on 
the Galilzan cities with which their commission ends, were spoken 
when He was about to leave Galilee; but the Lord may have added 
them as an example of like judgment to come upon the cities that 
rejected His messengers. It seems, therefore, very doubtful whether 
the Seventy were sent out till the Lord was leaving, or had finally left 
Galilee. 

Did the Lord send them into Samaria? This is said by some. 
(So Wieseler, Lange, Cook.), Godet says: ‘‘He intended to do a 
work in the north of Samaria like that which had succeeded so 
admirably in the south.” It is true that in their commission they 
were not forbidden, as were the apostles, to enter Samaria; but never- 
theless the nature of their message makes it most improbable that 
they would proclaim it in the Samaritan cities. (So Robinson and 
most.) They were to announce that the kingdom in the person of 
the King was at hand. Such announcement could be made to those 
only who were already familiar with the Jewish conceptions of the 
Messiah, and friendly to them. But the Messianic expectations of the 
Samaritans were not those of the Jews, for, as they accepted the law 
only as Divinely inspired, not the prophets, they knew nothing of 
the promises made to the Son of David.? Nor did the welcome they 
gave to the Lord in the first stage of His ministry (John iv. 39) 
prove their willingness now to receive Him as the Jewish Messiah.* 
Besides this ignorance of the true nature of His Messiahship, He had 
been already rejected in Samaria by the rejection of His messengers, 
and for the reason that His face was turned to Jerusalem. Meyer 
quotes Weiss with approval: ‘‘Of any appointment of the Seventy 
for Samaria, or for the heathen world at all, there is not a single 
word said.” . 

Were the Seventy sent to Judea? The commentators, Maldonatus 


1 Sepp thinks that they were sent before the Lord as He journeyed into the regions 
of Tyre and Sidon, and of the Decapolis (Matthew xy. 21). But we must remember that 
the Lord’s work in Galilee was at this time finished, and He was about to leave it, and 
that the Seventy were not sent to the heathen. 

2 Hamburger, ii. 1,063; Lightfoot, on John iv, 25. 

8 The reading of the A. V.: ‘“‘ We know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour 
of the world,” in the R. V. is, ‘‘We know that this is indeed the Saviour of the 
world.” John iv. 42. (So Tisch., W. and H.) 





Part VI.] MISSION OF THE SEVENTY. 383 


and a Lapide, make Judea the place of their labors, as Galilee had 
been that of the Apostles. (With them agree Ellicott, Oosterzee, and 
others.) Considered as a testimony to the Messianic claims of Jesus, 
their mission would have found in Judzea — the seat of the hierarchy 
—its most fitting field; but the Lord had been compelled to leave 
that province long before because the ecclesiastical rulers sought to 
kill Him (John vii. 1), and their hostility was shown anew at the 
Feasts of Tabernacles and Dedication. It is not likely, therefore, 
that He sent them to cities where He could not follow them without 
endangering His life, not to speak of the improbability that they 
would have been allowed to deliver their message. And it is not in- 
timated that He visited any part of Judea during this last journey 
except when going to Bethany (Luke x. 38; John xi. 1), or that the 
Seventy went there; but if their mission was of necessity executed 
elsewhere, it was doubtless well known in Judea and the Holy City, 
and served its purpose as a witness. 

Were they sent to Perea? As all are agreed that this was the 
chief region of our Lord’s labors in this last stage of His ministry, the 
strong presumption is that they would go before Him there. And this 
is made certain by the statements of Matthew and Mark, which will 
be examined later. 

We conclude, then, that the mission of the Seventy was chiefly 
fulfilled in Persea, though we cannot tell what parts of it they visited. 
If the Lord, after His rejection in Samaria, passed along its north border 
eastward, and crossed the Jordan near Bethshean, they may have 
preceded Him into north Perea. How far to the northeast or south 
they went is mere conjecture; there were many large towns east of 
the Dead Sea, some of which they may have visited. 

Their return.—We have still to ask, When and to what place did 
the Seventy return? In Luke (x. 17) their return is mentioned in 
immediate connection with their sending forth, but some considerable 
interval must have elapsed; how long was this interval depends upon 
the manner of their mission. Were they all sent at once, and from 
one place, or two by two, at different times, and from different places? 
In the former case, did the Lord wait in the place from which they were 
sent till all returned to Him, and then begin His circuit after them, 
or did He follow those first sent, and then the rest, in the order of 
their return? The last seems most probable. Meyer says, ‘‘ Some 
must have returned very soon, others later.” We can scarce doubt 
that the Lord made known to them the names of the cities and places 
He would visit (A. V.: “whither He Himself would come”; R. V.: 
“was about to come”), and these in some definite order; and it is 
probable that He would visit the nearest first, and the more remote 


384 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD, [Part VI. 


later, but always advancing towards Jerusalem. But this order 
might be broken in two ways: first, by the refusal of a city to receive 
the messengers; second, by the hostility of the Pharisees preventing 
Him from following them. That ultimately all the Seventy rejoined 
Him, we learn, but when and where we are not told. It may have 
been after Dedication, and at that place beyond Jordan where He 
abode (John x. 40). After all had returned to him, he spake to them 
the words in Luke x. 17-24. 

Effect of their mission.— Such a mission must, in the nature of the 
case, have excited a very wide and deep interest throughout the whole 
country, for He was now everywhere well known, and all knew the 
goal of His journey. That such interest was awakened is shown by 
the crowds that gathered to Him and accompanied Him. Matthew 
says (xix. 2): ‘‘Great multitudes followed Him.” Mark says (x. 1): 
“The people ” — 8xAo. — ‘‘ multitudes’ — ‘‘resort unto Him again.” 
Luke says (xi. 29): ‘‘ When the people were gathered thick together.” 
Again (xii. 1): ‘‘ When there were gathered together an innumerable 
multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another.” 
(‘‘ The many thousands of the multitude,” R. V.) Again (xiv. 25): 
‘‘And there went great multitudes with Him.” This language, per- 
haps, warrants us in saying, that at no previous period of His ministry 
had such crowds gathered to hear Him, or such intense excitement 
prevailed. 

It is obvious that through such concourse of the people His 
enemies would be even more inflamed against Him, and aroused to take 
more active measures to destroy Him. Their emissaries would follow 
Him from place to place, and watch carefully all His acts and words, to 
find some new grounds of accusation against Him as breaking the 
law, or to turn His teachings into ridicule, and so discredit them. 
How often during this journey He came into hostile contact with the 
Pharisees and their allies, will be seen in our examination of the nar- 
ratives. 

Character of His teaching.—If the object of the Lord in send- 
ing the Seventy was to bring before the people His Messianic claims, 
His teachings would naturally take upon themselves a correspond- 
ing character. And this was the case, as we shall by and by see. 
That there was a very strong and general belief among the people 
that the Lord would avow Himself the Messiah when He reached 
Jerusalem, and there proclaim the Messianic kingdom, there can be 
no doubt (Luke xix. 11). A large part of His teachings related, 
directly or indirectly, to this kingdom. But the public mind was not 
assured. While He distinctly claimed to be the Messiah, His acts 
did not at all correspond to the popular expectation. He did not 





a et 
— 


Part VI] THE FINAL DEPARTURE FROM GALILEE. 388 


inflame men’s hearts against the Roman yoke, or take any steps look 
ing to its overthrow. He made no overtures to the Pharisees, and 
what could He do without their help? His words were often very 
mysterious, and we cannot wonder that at the Feast of Dedication 
the Jews should say to Him: ‘‘How long dost Thou make us to 
doubt? If Thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.” Still those who saw 
in Him a possible Messiah, though they understood Him not — prob- 
ably a large number—must have had their hopes quickened and 
strengthened during this last journey. And even His apostles, 
though plainly told of His approaching death, were so far affected 
by the popular excitement and under the power of the current 
Messianic beliefs, that they could not understand His words about 
His rejection and sufferings, but believed that as a reward for their 
fidelity high places would soon be given them in His kingdom 
(Matt. xix. 27; xx. 20). 


NovVEMBER — DECEMBER, 782. A.D. 29. 


The time when He should be received up approaching, 
the Lord sets His face to go to Jerusalem. Hesendsmes- Luks ix. 51-56. 
sengers before Ilim, who, entering into a Samaritan village, 
are rejected by the inhabitants. He reproves His angry 
disciples, James and John, and departs to another village. 
He replies to one who proposes to follow Him. He now Ltk«Eix. 61, 62. 
sends out seventy of His disciples. to go two and twointo LuKE x. 1-24. 
every city and place where He Himself wouldcome. They Mart. xi. 20-30. 
depart, and return from time to time as they fulfill their Marv. xix. 1. 
commission. He follows in theirsteps, journeying through Marx x. 1. 
Perea toward Jerusalem. 


Having already discussed the statements of the Evangelists 
respecting the Lord’s last journey, in their general features, we 
have here to deal only with details. 

Some have thought to find a chronological datum in His 
words: ‘‘ When the time was come that He should be received 
up” —év T@ ovptAnpovobat tac juépac. If it be read as mean- 
ing, “when the days were entirely completed,” the Passover at 
which He suffered must have been close at hand. But the 
words are generally understood as meaning that the time of His 
passion was approaching, but not giving any definite indication 
how near.’ We cannot, therefore, find in this, a specific chron. 


1 So Norton: ‘*‘ When the time was near for His being received into heaven.’ In 
the R. V.: ‘“‘ When the days were well-nich come’: in margin: ‘* were being fulfilled.” 
In Bleek, der Zeit war nahe, stand bevor, kam heran. See Gardiner, 129, note; and 
Godet, in loco. 

Vv 


386 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VI. 


ological datum. The view of Wieseler (Syn., 324), that “the 
being received up” —rij¢ dvadArjupewc — refers to His favorable 
reception by the Galilwans, and that the meaning is, ‘*‘ When He 
no longer found Himself received in Galilee, He left that prov- 
ince and went up to Jerusalem to labor there,” is very arbitrary 
and finds little support.'. The messengers sent before Him to 
the Samaritan village are said by some early writers to have 
been the two Apostles, James and John, but without authority, 
traditional or otherwise. The village where He was rejected is 
thought by many to be the present Ginnea or Jenin, situated 
upon the north border of Samaria, and overlooking the plain of 
Esdraelon. It is mentioned by Josephus (Antiq., xx. 6. 1) as the 
place where some pilgrims at a later period, going up to the 
feast, were attacked and killed. It is probable that the road 
from Nazareth to Jerusalem always passed this way (Baed., 343), 
and as a frontier town it might have been the first reached by 
the Lord.’ 

Tt is not certain that the Lord passed out of Galilee into 
Samaria atall. Very probably He waited on the border till the 
return of His messengers. The “ other village” to which they 
went was not in Samaria. (So Meyer.) 

The intentions to follow the Lord expressed by the three 
men (Luke ix. 57-62), suit very well this beginning of the last 
journey, but Matthew mentions the like intentions of two men 
just before the journey to Gergesa (viii. 19-22). As it is im- 
probable that the Lord would have repeated the same words on 
two such occasions, many say that Luke inserts verses 57-60 out 
of the chronological order.* Matthew certainly gives the inci- 
dents a more definite setting, but it is probable that the man 
mentioned in verses 61, 62, met the Lord on this last journey. 
That the three here spoken of were Judas Iscariot, and Thomas, 
and Matthew (Lange), or that one of them was Philip (Godet), 
are merely traditional conjectures. 








1 See his Beitriige, 130; contra, Meyer and Bleek, in /oco, and Edersheim, vol. ii. 128. 

2 So Licht., Farrar, and many others. Maldonatus thinks the village to have been 
Samaria, the capital, but this is too far from the border, and was a city while this is called 
a village. 

3 So Meyer, Bleek, Lange, Licht., Rob.; contra, Tisch., Neander, Gardiner, Fuller, 
and, in substance, Godet. In favor of Luke’s order it gare be said that the Lord’s 
words : ‘* The Son of man has not where to lay His head,”’ better apply to this a 
than to His residence in Galilee. 





Part VI.] THE FINAL DEPARTURE FROM GALILEE. 387 


That the number of the Seventy was not an arbitrary one 
but had some significance, is apparent. Some think it to corre- 
spond to the ‘seventy elders” (Numbers xi. 16); and others find 
‘an allusion to the later Sanhedrin; Godet supposes that the Lord 
may have constituted an anti-Sanhedrin, as in the twelve apos- 
tles he finds new spiritual patriarchs set over against the twelve 
sons of Jacob. This is fanciful. Others find in the number a 
reference to the belief that there were seventy heathen nations 
(Gen. x. 32), and see in the mission now set forth a foreshadow- 
ing of the preaching of the Gospel to all nations." That there is 
some prophetic reference in the mission of the Seventy to a 
preaching of the gospel of the kingdom before the Lord’s return 
in glory, is probable; but analogy leads us to refer it to those in 
covenant, rather than to the heathen. (Winer, i. 569; Licht., 
327.) 

We have already referred to the various opinions respecting 
the time when, and the place whence, the Seventy were sent. 
If we accept Luke as here following the order of events, this 
sending was after the rejection in Samaria. If He then jour- 
neyed along the border eastward, He may have chosen and sent 
them before He reached the Jordan valley, or soon after He en- 
tered Perea. We know, at least, that the chief region of their 
mission was beyond Jordan, and it will be in place here briefly 
to describe this region. 


PROVINCE OF PERA. 

Perea is mentioned in the gospels (Matt. iv. 25) under the term 
‘beyond Jordan” —-répay rod “Iopddvov; in Mark x. 1, translated 
“The farther side of Jordan.” But there is here question as to the 
text. Mark (x. 1) says: ‘‘ He arose from thence, and cometh into the 
coasts of Judea by the further side of Jordan.” In R. V.: He cometh 
into the borders of Judza and beyond Jordan. (So Tisch., W. and 
H.) Is ‘‘beyond Jordan” to be taken as the name of Perea, as in 
iii. 8? In this case the Lord would have gone from Galilee to 
Judza, and thence over the Jordan. But it may be understood, He 
cometh to Judza by way of beyond Jordan, or by Persa (so Meyer, 
Keil, and most). But there is another interpretation of the words, 


! So Bleek, Wieseler, and many; contra, Meyer, who denies any reference to the 
Gentile nations. As to the Jewish offering of the seventy bullocks at the Feast of Tab 
ernacles, according to the number of the nations, see Lightfoot on John vii. 37. 


388 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VL 


It is said by Caspari (89) that the district mentioned in Joshua xix. 
34, ‘‘ Judah at Jordan”, is to be identified with the ancient Gaulan- 
itis or modern Jolan, and was north of the Sea of Galilee. (For earlier 
discussion see Reland, 33; later, see Riehm, 789.) Thomson (ii. 391) 
finds a place on the easternmost branch of the Jordan, now called Seid 
Yehudah, which he thinks to have been in Judwa beyond Jordan. 
It is to this Cistrict, not to Perea, that Caspari supposes Matthew 
and Mark to refer. 

The west border of Persea was the Jordan; on the east its border 
was undefined;' on the north it extended to the Jarmuk; on the 
south, to the Arnon, a length of some sixty miles. Its capital, 
according to Josephus, was Gadara (War, iv. 7. 8). It is distin- 
guished by Matthew (iv. 25) from the Decapolis. It was a part 
of the territory of Herod Antipas, and Macherus, where John was 
imprisoned, was in the southern part of it. Josephus speaks of it 
as larger than Galilee, but not so fertile. Modern travellers, however, 
speak of the great richness of the soil, especially in the central part 
known as Gilead. Tristram (B. P. 335) says: “ None can fairly judge 
of Israel’s heritage who has not seen the luxuriance of Gilead. To 
compare Juda with it is to contrast nakedness and luxuriance.”? 
That it was filled in the Lord’s day with cities and villages is certain, 
‘though none are mentioned by name in the Gospels, and many ruined 
places are still to be seen on the east bank of the Jordan. The popu- 
lation was not purely Jewish, but rather a mixed one; not so largely 
heathen as in the Decapolis, and not likely to be so easily stirred up 
against the Lord as the inhabitants of Judea, or even of Galilee.* 
It, therefore, presented, in some respects, a better field for His pres- 
ent activity, though we can hardly agree with Pressensé, that “it 
offered to Him the quiet retreat which He could no longer find in 
Galilee.” As the population was in some degree a mixed one, the 
Lord would find less of bigoted opposition than in Judea or even 
than in Galilee, while it was so near these provinces that information 
of all His movements would soon be known in them. We may infer 
that the spirit of the people in general was friendly, since many came 
to hear Him, remembering John’s words respecting Him; ‘‘ And 
many believed on Him there.” 

The central point of the Lord’s activity after the Feast of Dedi- 


1 According to Josephus, War, iii. 3. 3, it reached to Arabia, Gerasa, and Phila- 
delphia. 

2 See also Oliphant’s ‘‘ Land of Gilead.” 

3 See Neubauer, page 241, who quotes the Rabbins that Judea was the wheat, Gab 
ilee, chaff, Perzea, tares; and adds that there were many long discussions whether the 
trans-Jordanic region enjoyed all the religious privileges belonging to Judea and Galilee. 


Part VI1.] JESUS JOURNEYS IN PERAA. 389 


cation was at ‘‘the place where John at first baptized.” It is said 
‘that there He abode —éyevey—and many resorted unto Him” 
(John x. 40, 41). This did not hinder Him from going from place 
to place following the Seventy, but we may infer that the zeal of His 
enemies hampered in some degree the freedom of His movements. 
So far as we know, the place where John at first baptized was Beth- 
abara, the site of which has already been discussed. If we place it a 
little northeast of Jericho, it would have given a central and conven- 
ient point from which to visit the various towns in the province. If 
He came hither from Galilee, crossing the Jordan at Bethshean, or 
some ford higher up, and descended the river, there were many 
places He might have visited in northern Pera, following the 
Seventy, before He reached Bethabara. But it is idle to attempt to 
mark out their route, and to inquire to what cities they may have 
gone. 


NovemBer—Dercemper, 782. A.D. 29. 


During the journey through Perea, the Lordis attended Marv. xix. 2. 
by great multitudes, whom He teaches and heals. Upon Mark x. 1. 
the way He is tempted by a lawyer, who asks Him how LUKE x. 25-37. 
he shall inherit eternal life. Inreply, He relates the 
parable of the Good Samaritan. One of His disciples asks LuKE xi. 1-13. 
.or a form of prayer. He gives Him the form, and adds 
some remarks on the right method of prayer. 

‘The Lord was now entering upon a field of labor almost new, 
and yet prophetically foretold —répav tov "lopddvov, beyond 
Jordan” (Isaiah ix. 1, 2). Four districts are spoken of by the 
prophet: 1. Zebulon, Lower Galilee; 2. Naphtali, Upper Galilee 
(these are more particularly designated by the words following 
— “way of the sea,” or ‘‘seawards”’); 3. Beyond Jordan, Perea; 
4. Galilee of the Gentiles, the northern border of Galilee 
adjacent to the Gentile provinces. (See Meyer and Keil, zn loco.) 
Comparatively few in Persea, we may believe, had seen or heara 
Him; and the announcement of the Seventy that He was about 
to follow them, would naturally call general attention to His 
movements, and gather great crowds around Him. It is ap- 
parent, also, that the peculiar character of this journey gave 
new impulse to the prevalent Messianic expectations. It is 
mentioned by Matthew (xix. 2) in general terms, that He healed, 
but no specific cases are given. Mark speaks only of teaching. 

We have no data to determine when the inquiry of the 


390 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VL 


lawyer was made. It may have been early in the journey, 
while the Lord was yet on the border of Samaria; and His reply 
derives a special significance from the fact that He Himself had 
just been rejected by the Samaritans; or it may have been a 
little later, when He was on His way to the Feast of Dedication, 
and was near Jericho. Still, the bitter hostility of the Jews 
to the Samaritans would have given point to the parable, 
wherever He may have been. 

Luke (xi. 1) introduces the request for a form of prayer, 
with the remark, that “as He was praying in a certain place, 
when He ceased, one of His disciples said unto Him,” ete. From 
this it has been inferred by some (as Oosterzee and Godet) that 
the incident stands here in its historical connection, and is in- 
serted by Matthew out of its place in the Sermon on the Mount 
(vi. 9-13); and they find in its brevity proof that it was spoken 
as given by Luke. It certainly appears more probable that it 
should be given in answer to a disciple than spoken to the 
multitude; and if it had been spoken on that occasion, it might 
have simply been referred to here. Still, many make it to have 
been original in Matthew, and repeated here; and others, as 
Alford, that it stands in close connection with what goes before 
in both Evangelists. Tholuck takes the distinction, that in the 
first instance it was generally given, but in the latter as a specific 
form. The difference of expression in the two cases is explained 
by the fact that Luke gives here, as often, a less complete 1epo-t 
of Christ’s words. (See Keil, in loco.) 


NovVEMBER — DECEMBER, 782. A.D. 29. 


The Lord heals a dumb possessed man. The Pharisees LUKE xi. 14-28 
accuse Him of casting out the devils through Beelzebub. 
He replies to them, and while He is speaking a woman in 
the crowd blesses Him. He continues to discourse to the LUKE xi. 27-36. 
multitude on the desire for signs. He dines with a Phari- 
see, and sharply rebukes Pharisaical hypocrisy. The Phari- LUKE xi. 37-54. 
sees are greatly enraged, a great crowd gathers, and He LUKE xii. 1-12. 
proceeds to address the disciples, admonishing them to be- 
ware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and to fear God only. LUKE xii. 13-22, 
One of those present desires of Him that He will make , 
his brother divide the inheritance with him. He denies his 
request, and speaks the parable of the rich fool. He ad- Luke xii, 22-53. 








Part VI.] JESUS DINES WITH A PHARISEE. 391 


monishes the disciples to watch for the coming of the Son ; 

of Man, and, after answering a question of Peter, proceeds LUKE xii. 54-59. 
to address the people respecting their inability to discern 

the signs of the times. 

The relation of this miracle of the dumb possessed and of 
the discourse following it, to the healing mentioned by Matthew 
(xii. 22), and the discourse there given, has been already dis- 
cussed (p. 287). Most agree that Luke has placed them here 
out of their historical connections.' Tischendorf identifies this 
healing with the miracle in Matt. ix. 32-34, but regards it 
rightly placed here. Greswell strongly insists that this account 
is wholly distinct from those in Matthew and Mark. It being 
impossible to come to any certain result, and as it is at least pos- 
sible that Matthew relates another case of healing and another 
discourse, we will follow Luke’s order. (See Godet and Keil, 
tin loco.) In regard to the rebukes of the Pharisees by the Lord, 
spoken at the house of a Pharisee (verses 37-52), we cite the 
just observation of Alford, that He ‘spoke at this meal parts of 
that discourse with which He afterward solemnly closed His 
public ministry.” 

That Jesus should have been invited by a Pharisee to dine 
with him, or rather to breakfast with him, when the sect in 
general was so hostile to Him, may have been owing to the 
desire to have one so famous for a guest, or perhaps to a true 
impulse of hospitality; but more probably with evil intention, 
hoping to entrap Him. This better agrees with the seeming 
abruptness and sharpness of the Lord’s words. (See, however, 
contra, Kdersheim, ii. 205, and his observations upon the Jewish 
rules of etiquette at table.) The severity of His language seems 
directed rather against Pharisaism than against the individuals 
then present, except so far as their consciences should compel a 
self-application. The sins are rebuked which were characteristic 
of that party. The lawyer (xi. 45) makes a distinction between 
his class and the Pharisees in general, as if the former were a 
kind of higher order, a learned aristocracy. That the Lord 
touched his hearers to the quick is apparent from their vehe- 
ment attempts to entangle Him by their questions. 





1 So Robinson, Alford, Lichtenstein. 


392 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VL 


_ It is said by Godet that verses 53, 54 describe “a scene of 
violence probably unique in the life of Jesus.” If we suppose the 
Pharisee to have resided in some city which had been visited by 
two of the Seventy, and in which were many Pharisees and 
scribes, who had been excited by their message, and perhaps 
had gathered their adherents from the neighboring towns, we 
may better understand the narrative. The “innumerable 
multitude” (R. V.: ‘The many thousands of the multitude ”), 
composed in part of the citizens, and in part of the crowds that 
were following Him, so many that in their eagerness “ they trode 
one upon another,” seems to have been much like a modern mob. 
That the feeling in general was hostile to the Lord may be in- 
ferred from His words addressed to His friends (xii. 4): “Be 
not afraid of them that kill the body.” 

In regard to the discourses found in this chapter (Luke xii.), 
it is impossible to say whether they have their right place here 
or in Matthew, or whether the Lord may not have repeated 
them. <A considerable part is found in the Sermon on the 
Mount as given by Matthew (vi. 25 ff.); and another part in the 
last discourse on the Mount of Olives (xxiv. 42 ff.); and still 
another in the commission given to the Twelve (x. 34 ff.); and 
smaller portions elsewhere. As Matthew brings together in his 
report of the discourse much that was beyond doubt spoken at 
other times, we are inclined to believe that Luke here in the main 
follows the order of events. (See Oosterzee, in loco; also Alford.) 

We may ask here in what way the disciples understood the 
Lord’s instructions to watch for His return (verses 35-40). He 
had spoken to them after His transfiguration of His death and 
resurrection, and of His coming in glory (Matt. xvi. 21-27). 
And at Jerusalem (John vii. 33, 34) He had spoken of a going 
away: “I go unto Him that sent me; ye shall seek me, and not 
find me.” But neither the disciples nor the Jews understood 
what this departure was (Luke xviii. 34; John viii. 22), nor did 
they connect His return with the resurrection. Probably the 
Jewish belief, though very vaguely held, that the Messiah would 
come, and then be hidden for a time, and then reappear as King, 
may have helped to explain His words; and perhaps also His 
appearance on the Mount of Transfiguration, showing that a 








Part VI.}| JESUS HEALS AN INFIRM WOMAN. 393 


change was to pass upon Him before He entered upon His king- 
dom, may have been understood by the three apostles present 
as pointing to a departure and return. But evidently if the 
disciples looked forward to any separation from Him, it was 
only for the briefest period. It is not probable that His words 
now spoken, in which His personal absence from them was 
assumed as a fundamental condition of their future trials, and to 
wait for His return made a continual duty, were understood by 
them. It was not till after His resurrection and ascension 
that they could know what His coming, and the waiting for it, 
meant. 

The request of one of the company that the Lord should 
speak to his brother to divide the inheritance with him, and the 
following parable of the rich fool, are mentioned only by Luke. 
The request shows how much the attention of men was now 
turned to Jesus as the Messiah, and this fact doubtless greatly 
inflamed the hostility of the Pharisees. 


November — December, 782. A.D. 29. 


Being told of the murder of the Galilzans by Pilate, LUKE xiii. 1-9. 

he replies, and adds a parable respecting the fig tree. 

While teaching in the synagogue upon the Sabbath, He LUKE xiii. 10-17. 
heals a woman who has been sick eighteen years. Heis LUKE xiii. 18-21. 
rebuked for this by the master of the synagogue, but puts 

him to shame. He continues His journey toward Jerusa- 

lem, and replies to the question of one who asked Him, LUKE xiii. 22-35. 
“ Are there few that be saved?’’ The same day He is 

warned by certain Pharisees against Herod. 

Of these Galilezans so murdered by Pilate we have no other 
mention, and cannot tell when the event occurred. There can 
be little doubt that it was at Jerusalem, and during a feast.' 
The relations of Pilate to the Jews were such as to make this 
act of cruelty highly probable. He was no respecter of places, 
and did not hesitate upon occasion to violate the sanctity of the 
temple. Some suppose these Galileans to have been the follow- 
ers of Judas of Galilee (Acts v. 37), but without any good 
grounds. Probably there was some sudden outbreak at one of 
the feasts; and they, perhaps taking part in it, perhaps only 


1 See analogous cases in Josephus, Antiq., xvii. 9, 10; xviii. 3. 2. 


12 


394 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VL 


mere spectators, were slain by the Roman soldiers in the outer 
court. Some see in this the cause, or an effect, of the enmity 
between Pilate and Herod (Luke xxiii. 12). That the event was 
recent, and that it excited great indignation, are apparent from 
the narrative. The attempt of Greswell (iii. 26) to connect it 
with the sedition of Barabbas (Luke xxiii. 19), and to place it at 
the beginning of the last Passover, and thus to find in it a note 
of time, is more subtle than forcible. Hengstenberg,’ suppos- 
ing that the parable of the fig tree was spoken a year before the 
Lord’s death, makes the murder of these Galil#ans to have been 
at the last Passover but one, or that mentioned in John vi. 4, 
which the Lord did not attend. Edersheim, with more ground, 
infers that it had just occurred, as else they would not have 
spoken of it. Of the tower that fell in Siloam we have no 
knowledge, but as Josephus (War, v. 4. 3) speaks of the towers 
on the city walls, it has been conjectured that it was one of 
them. It is said by some, as Pressensé, that it occurred during 
the building of his aqueduct by Pilate. 

The parable of the fig tree has been regarded by many as 
giving a datum to determine the length of the Lord’s ministry * 
But it is doubtful whether it has any chronological value,* and 
the point has been already discussed in the chronological essay. 
Some refer the three years to the whole period before Christ, 
during which God was waiting for the Jews;* some to the three 
polities, those of the judges, kings, and high priests. 

The healing of the sick woman is mentioned by Luke, with- 
out any mark of time or place, except generally, that it was in 
a synagogue and upon the Sabbath. The decided manner in 
which the ruler of the synagogue expressed himself against the 
lawfulness of healing on this day, indicates that the Pharisaic 
party had determined to treat such works of healing as a viola- 
tion of its sanctity. There is no expression of sympathy with 
the woman, of sorrow at her sickness, or joy at her recovery. 
That in this condemnation of the Lord’s act he was supported 
by others, appears from verse 17. Such a literal adherence to 
the law and violation of its spirit awakened Christ’s just indigna 


1 Christol., iii. 249. 2 Bengel, Krafft, Wieseler, Stier. 
8 So Meyer, Lichtenstein, Trench. 4 Grotius. 





Part VI.] THE PHARISEES WARN JESUS OF HEROD. 395 


tion, and He denounced him as a hypocrite. Perhaps, the para- 
bles of the mustard seed and leaven may have been originally 
spoken here, or at least repeated here.' 

The account of the Lord’s progress (verse 22) that ‘He 
went through the cities and villages — kata 76Ae¢ Kal KOwac,— 
teaching and journeying toward Jerusalem,” is too indefinite to 
determine what stage of His journey He had now reached, but 
it indicates that He visited many places on the way. This lan- 
guage is over-pressed by Godet, who speaks of ‘« His stopping at 
every city, and even at every village.” Some would refer it to 
His work after Dedication; others, to His going up from Perza 
to Bethany at the resurrection of Lazarus (John xi. 1-17).’ 
Some support is thought to be found for the last in the Lord’s 
words (verses 32, 33): «Behold, I cast out devils, and I do 
cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third I shall be perfected. 
Nevertheless I must walk to-day, and to-morrow, and the 
day following.” The three days are said to refer to the time 
necessary to go up from Perea to Bethany, and so are to be liter- 
ally taken. The meaning of His words then is, “In three days 
I perfect this part of my work, and not till then do I leave. 
Herod’s dominions.” But even if the language is capable of 
this interpretation, it is certain that verse 22, which speaks of a 
journey to Jerusalem, would not be applied to a journey to 
Bethany, which was rather a turning aside from His fixed route 
in answer to a special request. 

The time when the Pharisees came to Him to warn Him to 
depart or Herod would kill Him, is designated as the same day 
when the question was asked Him, “ Are there few that be 
saved?” (Tisch., and W. and H., have wpg. R. V.: “ In that 
very hour.”) This was one of the days during which He was 
teaching and journeying toward Jerusalem (verse 22). That 
Herod should be spoken of, shows that Jesus was now either in 
Galilee or Pera, and so under his jurisdiction and exposed to 
his anger. Meyer supposes Him to be still in Galilee, and that 
His reply to the Pharisees (verse 32)is to be understood: “I 
have yet three days in whick to labor in Galilee, and to complete 
my work of casting out devils and of healing, and then I must 





1 McKnight, Meyer, Alford, Godet. 
2 Wieseler, Oosterzee. 


396 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD, [Part VL 


go up to Jerusalem.” On the third day He comes to the border, 
as related in xvii. 11. Wieseler (Syn., 322) makes Him to have 
journeyed three days to reach Bethany. But are the Lord’s 
words to be understood of three literal days?’ This literal 
interpretation is not to be pressed. The number three seems 
here, as in the three years (verse 7), to denote a period of 
time as complete in itself, with a beginning, middle, and end, 
and does not give us any chronological help. There is no good 
reason why the language may not be understood as a general 
statement, that His labors must be continued till He should per- 
fect them at His death in Jerusalem.* 

The motive of these Pharisees in thus warning the Lord to 
depart, is not clear. It is possible that they were His friends, 
and that their message was based upon some information which 
they possessed of the purposes of Herod, who may have been in 
Pera, at Livias or Machaerus. Had he been, the great pub- 
licity with which the Lord journeyed could scarcely have failed 
to draw the king’s attention to Him, and to awaken some sus- 
picion of His designs. Ifnot His friends, some suppose them to 

have been sent by Herod in order to frighten Him from his 
territories. This supposition finds some support in His reply, 
“Go ye, and tell that fox.” Less probable is the supposition 
that they feigned themselves to be Herod’s messengers, in order 
to drive Him into Judza where He could be more readily arrested 
by the priests and rulers. Perhaps the simpler explanation is 
that, without being sent by Herod, or having any special knowl- 
edge of his plans, they gratify their malice by uttering the 
threat that he will kill Him if He does not depart. 

The apostrophe to Jerusalem (verses 34, 35) is found also in 
Matt. xxiii. 37-39, where it was spoken after the Lord left the 
temple for the last time. From its nature, and from the con- 
nection in which it stands in both Evangelists, it is probable that 
it was twice spoken.‘ Those who think it to have been spoken 
but once, find its most fitting place in Matthew.* 


1 So Meyer, Alford, Ellicott. This, however, makes it necessary to render 
T*\ecodwat, “I perfect my works,” or, ‘‘I close my ministry,”’ not as in our version, “T 
shall be perfected.” R. V.: ‘I am perfected.” 

2 So Lichtenstein Stier, Owen, Godet. 8 McKnight, Meyer, Alford, Weiss. 

* So Stier, Alford. Ellicott 5 Meyer, Lange, DeWette. 





Part VI.] THE FEAST OF DEDICATION. 39? 


It has been questioned how the words, “Ye shall not see 
me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is He that 
cometh in the name of the Lord,” are to be understood. The 
most obvious meaning is, that they are to be taken in the large 
prophetic sense, and refer to His departure into heaven, and to 
His joyful reception by the nation when He should come again 
in His kingdom. And this also best fits the connection of the 
thought. No prophet could perish out of Jerusalem. There 
He must die, and afterward ascend to God, to be seen no more 
till the hearts of the people should be made ready for Him. 
Till then, their house was left unto them desolate.’ Here is 
brought out the truth that He would return when His people 
should desire it, and welcome His heralds. The supposition that 
He foretold His purpose to go up to the coming Passover, and 
that it then found its entire fulfilment,? is erroneous. That some 
of the people did then say (Luke xix. 38), “ Blessed be the King 
that cometh in the name of the Lord,” was no general, much 
less national, acceptance of Him, and no real fulfillment of His 
words. Still, some allusion to the shouts of the multitude at His 
is triumphal entry need not be denied.? 


DeEcEMBER 20-27, 782. A.D. 29. 


From Perza He goes up to Jerusalem to be present at the JOHN x. 22-24. 
Feast of Dedication. Upon the way He passes through the 
village of Bethany, and visits Mary and Martha. Reaching LUKE x. 38-42. 
Jerusalem, the Jews demand that He declare plainly whether 
He is or is not the Messiah. He answers them by referring to JOHN x. 25-42. 
His past words and works. The Jews, thinking His answer 
blasphemous, take up stones to stone Him. He continues 
His discourse to them, but as they seek to arrest Him He es- 
capes from them, and goes beyond Jordan to Bethany (Beth- 
abara), and abides there. Many resort to Him, and believe 
on Him. 


It is at this point, after Luke xiii., that we would insert the 
narrative of John (x. 22-42), embracing the visit to the Feast 
of Dedication, and the return to Perma. These eveats are 
omitted by the Synoptists as not falling into the scope of their 

1 Tisch. and W. and H. omit ‘‘ desolate’? — épyuwos. Tisch. retains it, Matt. xxiii 


38, but W. and H. mark it as a secondary reading. 
2 Wieseler, 321. 3 Meyer, in loco. 


398 LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part V1. 


narratives, which leads them to mention no visit to Jerusalem 
but the last. 

That the visit at Bethany to Martha and Mary, mentioned 
by Luke only, took place at this time, cannot be positively 
affirmed, but it cannot well be put earlier. It may be placed by 
the Evangelist in its present position in the narrative upon other 
than chronological grounds, but there are no very strong chron- 
ological objections to the place here given it. 

The journey, as it has been traced, brings Him into the 
neighborhood of Jerusalem. His presence at the Feast of Dedi- 
cation, which was celebrated for eight days, from the 20th to 
the 27th of December, is often ascribed to the fact of His prox- 
imity to the city, rather than to any design on leaving Galilee 
to be present.’ It is not indeed probable that He would go up 
simply because of the feast, which He might have observed else- 
where. The three great feasts, says Lightfoot, ‘might not be 
celebrated in any other place, but the Encenia was kept every- 
where throughout the whole land.” As one of the minor feasts. 
His presence implies some special motive. May we not find 
this in the character of the Lord’s last journey? For a consid- 
erable period He had avoided Jerusalem; at the Feast of Taber- 
ernacles He went up secretly. Now He seeks publicity. Wher- 
ever the Seventy go they proclaim Him, and all understand that 
He appears as the Messiah. Perhaps, as has been already inti- 
mated, He may have designed to send His messengers into 
Judea, and if they found a favorable reception, to follow them. 
The great desire of His heart is to save Jerusalem from its im- 
pending destruction (Matt. xxiii. 37). He will present Himself 
again before the priests and scribes and rulers that they may 
show forth what is in their hearts, show whether they can yet 
recognize in Him the Messiah. And the Feast of Dedication 
had special significance as the time of such a visit. It was ap- 
pointed in commemoration of the national deliverance by the 
Maccabees from the oppression of the Syrians (B. c. 164). and of 
the cleansing of the temple and restoration of the appointed 
worship.? It should not only have reminded the Jews of the 
sins that brought them under the tyranny of Antiochus, and of 





1 Lichtenstein. 2 1 Maccabees iv. 52-59. 


Part VI.] JESUS IN THE TEMPLE ANSWERS THE JEWS. 399 


the goodness of God in their deliverance; but have taught them 
the true cause of their present bondage, and awakened in them 
hopes of a more glorious deliverance through the Son of David. 
Had the Lord found them conscious of sin, and humbling them- 
selves under the punishments of God, the way would have been 
opened for a new cleansing of the temple, and the bringing in 
of a new and nobler worship. But, as the event showed, the 
feast served only to feed their pride, to foster their hate of 
Roman rule, and to turn their hearts away from the true Deliy- 
erer. A Judas Maccabeus they would have welcomed; but 
Jesus, whose first work must be to deliver them from sin, found 
no favor in their eyes. 

It is possible that some of the Seventy may have preceded 
Jesus to Jerusalem, announcing His coming; but if not, His 
movements must have been well known there. The manner in 
which the Jews gather around Him, and the character of their 
question: “How long dost Thou make us to doubt? (R. V.: 
‘How long dost Thou hold us in suspense?’) If Thou be the 
Christ, tell us plainly,” clearly indicate that in some way their 
attention had been especially drawn to Him as something more 
than a prophet, as indeed the Christ. If we compare this lan- 
guage with that uttered but two months earlier, it appears evi- 
dent that His Messianic claims had now become more prominent. 
That the Jews asked the question with the intent to make an 
affirmative answer the basis of accusation,’ is not improbable; 
but it may also have been an honest expression of doubt. It is 
to be noticed that no mention is made of any preliminary teach- 
ing or healing, nothing to call forth the question. He is silent 
till it is addressed Him by the people, and this was as soon as 
He appeared in the temple. The place of His teaching was Sol 
omon’s porch,” probably selected because of the cold. 

The Lord’s reply: “I told you, and ye believed not,” must 
refer to the general sentiment and scope of His teachings; for 
we nowhere have on record any express avowal to the Jews that 
He was the Messiah. Such an avowal He seems purposely 
to have avoided. His own words were: “If I bear witness of 


1 So Meyer after Luther, M. and M., Eders. 
2 See Caspari, 298, and Edersheim, ii. 229, who differ as to its locality. 










400 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VI 


myself, my witness is not true. There is another that beareth — 
witness of me” (John vy. 31, 32). In conformity to this general — 
rule, He here refers the Jews to His works. “The works that 
I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me”; and that 
this evidence was not sufficient, He ascribes to their unbelief. 
This was not what they wanted, and they must have thought it 
very remarkable that if He were the Christ, He did not explicitly 
and openly affirm it. They did not consider that “with the 
heart man believeth unto righteousness”; and that the evidence 
that was convincing to a Nathanael, was wholly unsatisfactory 
to a Caiaphas. That in their question they had no other than 
the current conceptions of the Messiah, appears from the effect 
of His reply upon them. So soon as He began to speak of His 
relations to God as His Father, and said, “I and My Father are 
one,” they sought to stone Him. This was open blasphemy, and 
the blasphemer must be stoned. 

His reference to the figure of the sheep (verse 26), as it had 
been used by Him at the Feast of Tabernacles (x. 1-18), is not 
strange, for probably most of those now present, priests, scribes, 
and Pharisees, were residents in Jerusalem, and had heard His 
words at that time. The interval was but two months, not so 
long that they could have forgotten what He then said, — 
especially if they had not heard Him since. At all His former 
visits to the Holy City He wrought a miracle or miracles, but 
none are recorded of Him at this time. 

This attempt to take His life, compared with that at the Feast 
of Tabernacles (vill. 59), may perhaps show less of hasty passion, 
but indicates a fixed purpose to destroy Him.’ The attempt to 
take Him (verse 39) may have been with design to keep Him — 
in custody till He could be formally tried; or to remove Him 
from the temple that they might immediately stone Him. 
That His escape was miraculous is not said, though so regarded — 
by many.? If He had designed to send His messengers into — 
Juda, this new manifestation of hostility may have prevented 4 
it; for if His life was in danger at Jerusalem, He could not have — 
journeyed safely into other parts of the province. No other — 
place of refuge was open to Him than Perwa. Thus the 


1 Luthardt, ii. 190. 2 So Luthardt; contra, Meyer. 


Part VI.] JESUS RETURNS TO PERA. 401 


Seventy may but partially have completed their intended circuit, 
Judza being shut against them; and this will explain why their 
labors are so briefly noticed by the Evangelist. 

The Lord, now leaving Judza, goes beyond Jordan, “into the 
place where John at first baptized.” There is no doubt that this 
was Bethabara or Bethany (John i. 28). Its position has already 
been considered, though no positive result was reached. The 
strong probability is that John began his baptism near Jericho, 
and this place would seem to be meant here, even if he later 
went higher up the river to other baptismal places. The matter 
will meet us again in connection with the death of Lazarus. 
The motives that led to its selection are wholly conjectural. 
That He sought it merely as a place of safety from the Jews, is 
possible; but here, on the other hand, He was exposed to the 
anger of Herod (Luke xiii. 31, 32). Aside from considerations 
of His personal safety, there is much significance in this return 
to the place of His baptism. He might expect to find there, 
as He did, many whose hearts had been prepared by the teach- 
ings and baptism of John for the reception of His own words. 
It is said that “there He abode.” * This, as has been said, would 
not forbid that He should make short circuits through the sur- 
rounding towns. It was while in this place, whether town or dis- 
trict, that many resorted unto Him, and here Mary and Martha 
sent to Him during the sickness of Lazarus. How long He 
sojourned here ere He went up to Bethany near Jerusalem, to raise 
Lazarus, does not clearly appear. It is inferred by some, from 
the language of His disciples after He had proposed to return to 
Judea (xi. 7, 8): “The Jews of late sought to stone Thee” — 
vov é¢jtrovy —(R. V.: “‘ Were but now seeking to stone Thee,”) 
that He had but just come from Jerusalem.? Much stress, how- 
ever, cannot be laid on this. (See Acts vii. 52.) From the Feast 
of Dedication to the Passover was about four months, and it is not 
improbable that half of this, or more, was spent “beyond Jor- 
dan,” in the neighborhood of Bethany. Many would place during 
this time much that Luke relates. Upon grounds already stated, 
we shall assign to this period all from chap. xiv. to xvu. 10. 


1 As to the use of “ abode,” pevecy, see John iv. 40; vii. 9; xi. 6. 2 Meyer, 


402 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VL 


January, 783. A.D. 30. 


The Lord is invited to feast with one of the chief Phari- LukE xiy. 1-6, 
sees on the Sabbath day, and there heals a man who had 
the dropsy, and defends the lawfulness of the act. He ad- 
dresses the guests, reproving them for choosing the highest LuKE xiy. 7-14. 
seats, and reminds His host of his duty to the poor, and 
speaks the parable of the great supper. As He journeys LUKE xiy. 15-24. 
on, great multitudes go with Him, and He addresses LUKE xiy. 25-35, 
them upon the self-denial required in disciples. Publicans 
and sinners coming in large numbers to hear Him, the LuKE xy. 1-32. 
scribes and Pharisees murmur that He should receive them, 
and eat with them. He, therefore, utters several parables, 
those of the lost sheep, of the lost piece of silver, and of the 
prodigal son; and to His disciples that of the wasteful 
steward, adding admonitions against covetousness. The LUKE xvi. 1-13. 
Pharisees deriding Him, He rebukes them, and utters the LuKE xvi. 14-31. 
parable of the rich man and Lazarus. He addresses the LUKE xvii. 1-10. 
disciples upon offenses, and forgiveness, and faith. 

The Pharisee by whom the Lord was invited to eat bread is 
described as ‘‘one of the chief Pharisees.” This may denote 
that he was of high social position, but probably includes 
some official distinction, as that he was chief of a synagogue, or 
- member of the local Sanhedrin. His motive in thus seeking 
the Lord’s society does not clearly appear; and it is possible 
that, unlike most of his sect, he wished to show him some mark 
of respect, perhaps as a prophet, perhaps as the Messiah. Still 
the Lord’s words (verse 12) imply that He made the feast in a self- 
seeking, ostentatious spirit, and under the pretence of hospitality 
he may have hidden an evil design. (So Trench, Godet.) It 
appears that there were many invited, and that they were of the 
rich and better class. It was customary for the Jews to enter- 
tain their friends upon the Sabbath, although they cooked no 
food. “The Jews’ tables were generally better spread on that 
day than on any other.” * 

The appearance of the dropsical man at such a feast, it is not 
easy to explain. He could hardly, if severely ill, have been in- 
vited as a guest; and it is said that after the Lord had “healed 
him, He let him go,” as if he were only accidentally present. 
Nor is it probable that he came merely as a spectator, although 


1 Lightfoot; see Trench, Mir., 263, 





Part VI.] HEALING OF A MAN WITH THE DRopSyY. 403 


eastern customs permit strangers to enter houses at all hours 
with great freedom, and they are often present at feasts merely 
tolook on. Some have therefore supposed that he was inten- 
tionally brought in by the Pharisees, to see if the Lord would 
heal him on that day,’ he assenting to it. But had he been a 
mere tool in the hands of the Pharisees, it may well be doubted 
if the Lord would have healed him. It is more probable that 
he came in faith to be healed, and unable, perhaps, to approach 
the Lord before He entered into the house, now forced himself 
into the room where He was. 

McKnight supposes the parable of the great supper to be the 
same as that mentioned by Matthew xxii. 2—14, and to have been 
spoken a second time in the temple. But the parables are 
wholly distinct, as a comparison of the details plainly shows. 
(So Trench, Meyer, Godet, Keil.) 

As the end of His ministry drew nigh, and the hostility of 
His enemies became more open, the Lord’s words became more 
and more plain in showing how much of self-denial was involved 
in becoming one of His disciples. The same remarks in sub- 
stance He had before made (Matt. x. 37); but He here adds new 
illustrations. He compares Himself to a man who wishes to 
build a tower, His Church; and to a king who goes to make 
war with another king, with the prince of this world; and they 
who would aid Him in this building, or in this warfare, must be 
ready to sacrifice all. 

The great concourse of publicans and sinners to Him cannot 
be explained from anything in His language (xiv. 25-35) as 
especially applicable to them, nor as springing from their ex- 
clusion from the feast. It rather marks the fact that, now that 
His words had become more sharp against the Pharisees, and the 
breach between them and Him more apparent, this class rallied 
around Him and thronged to hear Him. Much to the disgust 
of the Pharisees, He did not disdain even to eat with them. 
Such an act they deemed in the highest degree unbecoming in 
one who claimed to be the Messiah; and it was also a keen re- 
proof to themselves, who so scrupulously excluded all publicans 
and sinners from their society. 








1 McKnight, Oosterzee, Stier, Keil, 


404 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VL 


It is disputed whether the parable of the lost sheep, as here 
given by Luke, is the same as that given by-Matt. xviii. 12, 13. 
From the relation in which it stands to the other parables which 
Luke has recorded, we cannot well doubt that it was spoken at the 
same time. But such an illustration, so natural and apt, may 
have been used more than once, and been spoken earlier in 
Galilee, as Matthew relates. Perhaps, both in form and in mean- 
ing, some distinction may be drawn between them. 

The parables of the lost sheep, of the lost piece of silver, and 
of the prodigal son, seem to have been all uttered at once to the 
Pharisees and scribes, who murmured at His reception of 
publicans and sinners. That which immediately follows, of the 
unjust steward, was spoken to the disciples; but whether im- 
mediately or after a little interval, we have no data to decide. 

It is not easy to see how the words addressed to the Pharisees 
in verse 18, respecting divorce and adultery, are to be connected 
with the verses immediately preceding; perhaps they may be an 
abstract of some discourse not otherwise mentioned; but the 
parable that follows, of the rich man and Lazarus, has plain 
reference to that sect. Whether the words to the disciples 
(xvii. 1-10) followed at once upon the parable, we cannot deter- 
mine. 


J ANUARY— Fesruary, 783. A.D. 30. 


Lazarus, the brother of Mary and Martha, being sick, JOHN xi. 1-46 

they send a messenger to the Lord in Perea to inform 

Him of his sickness. After receiving the message, He 

abides still two days in the place where He is. Taking 

the disciples with them, He then goes to Bethany and 

raises Lazarus from the dead. Many of the Jews present 

believe on Him, but others departing to Jerusalem tell 

what has occurred to the Pharisees. A councilis sum- JOHN xi. 47-64. 
moned, and Caiaphas the high priest advises that He be 

put to death. Jesus, learning this, goes with His dis- 

ciples to a city called Ephraim, and His enemies give a 
commandment, that, if any man know where He is, he 

shall show it, that they may take Him. 


At this point in Luke’s narrative (xvii. 11) we insert the 
account given by John of the journey of Jesus from Pera to 
Bethany to raise Lazarus, and of His subsequent departure to 
Ephraim and sojourn there. The exact order of events con 


Part VI.| THE RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS. 405 


nected with the death and resurrection of Lazarus, is not clear. 
The Lord waits two days after receiving the message of the 
sisters ere He departs for Bethany. It is not certain how long 
after the death of Lazarus He arrived there. It is said (verse 17) 
that “when He came He found that he had lain in the grave 
four days already.” We may then count as the first day that 
on which the message was sent and received; the two follow: 
ing days of waiting; and on the fourth He departs from 
Pera and arrives at Bethany. If we thus suppose Lazarus 
to have died on the same day that the message was sent, 
and to have been buried the same day, as was customary, 
(see Acts v. 6 and 10) the day of the Lord’s arrival was the 
fourth after the interment. Reckoning a part of a day as a 
whole, we have thus the four days. Lardner’ supposes that 
his burial was the day following his death. ‘If he died on the 
first day of the week, he was buried on the second, and raised 
on the fifth. He had been dead four days complete, and buried 
four days incomplete.” 

Tholuck (in loco) thinks it improbable that Jesus could have 
made the journey (perhaps 23-29 miles) in one day, and yet 
arrive in Bethany in season to do all that is recorded of Him. 
He must have spent parts of two days upon the road. He sup- 
poses, therefore, that Lazarus died the night following the arrival 
of the messenger and was buried the next day, and that Jesus 
reached Bethany the fifth day. The first day was that of the 
burial; the second and third were spent in waiting; the fourth 
in journeying; on the fifth He reaches Bethany and raises 
Lazarus. 

Some place the death of Lazarus on the last of the two days 
of waiting, referring in proof to Christ’s words (verses 11 and 
14).2. He had waited till the death should take place, and, 
so soon as it did, He announced it to the disciples, saying, 
“ Lazarus is dead.” Thus He is made to reach Bethany on the 
sixth day.* 

Edersheim (ii. 315), supposing the journey to Bethany to 
have occupied a day, thinks that the messenger left Bethany on 


1 Works, x. 26, note. 2 Bengel, Krafft. 
% See Greswell, ii. 518; Ebrard, 456; Stud. u. Krit., 1862, p. 65. 


406 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part V1. 


a Sunday and reached Jesus on Monday. He continued where 
He was two days — Tuesday, Wednesday —and reached Beth- 
any on Thursday, and raised Lazarus the same day, and on 
Friday the chief priests and Pharisees gathered a council. 


That the Lord, after He commenced this journey, went directly to 
Bethany, lies upon the face of the narrative.’ Yet some sup- 
pose that much related by the Synoptists finds here its proper 
place. Krafft (117) identifies the beginning of the journey with 
Mark x. 17: ‘‘ And when He was gone forth into the way,” etc. ; and 
Mark x. 32, Matt. xx. 17, and Luke xviii. 31, with its progress, An 
enumeration of the events which he here brings together will show 
the great improbability of his arrangement: the discourse upon the 
danger of riches, the reward of the apostles, the third announcement 
of His approaching death, the strife of the apostles for supremacy, 
the entrance into Jericho attended by crowds, healing of the blind 
men, interview with Zaccheus, parable of the pounds; all this on the 
way to Bethany. Ebrard does not follow Krafft, yet supposes that, 
as He was two or more days on the way, He may have made several 
circuits. All suppositions of this kind are wholly untenable. The 
Lord went to Bethany for a special purpose, attended only by His 
followers, and without publicity.? 

Bethany lies on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, some 
fifteen furlongs (nearly two miles) southeast from Jerusalem. The 
etymology of the name is uncertain. According to some it means 
‘*a low place,” locus depressionis, as lying in a little valley; according 
to others, a ‘‘ house of dates,’ or ‘‘ place of palms,” locus dactylorum.® 
It is not mentioned in the Old Testament. Its chief interest to us is 
in its connection with Lazarus and his two sisters; and with the Lord’s 
Ascension. Its proximity to Jerusalem and its retired position made 
it a convenient and pleasant resting place for the Lord upon His jour- 
neys to and from the feasts, although there is mention made but once 
of His presence there (Luke x. 38-42) prior to the resurrection of 
Lazarus. It is now a small village of some twenty houses, occupied 
by Bedouin Arabs. ‘‘A wild mountain hamlet, screened by an inter- 
vening ridge from the view of the top of Olivet, perched on its broken 
plateau of rock, the last collection of human habitations before the 


1 So Meyer, Tischendorf, Lichtenstein, Robinson. 

2 The arrangement of McKnight is extraordinary. Placing Bethany, where He 
was sojourning, on the Jordan in northern Persea, he supposes Jesus to have gone 
through Samaria and Galilee, and on the way to have healed the ten lepers (Luke xvii. 
11), and thence to Jerusalem, and from Jerusalem to Bethany of Juda. 

8 Lightfoot, x. 85; Winer, i. 67. 


— 


Part VI.] THE VILLAGE OF BETHANY, 407 


desert hills which reach to Jericho — this is the modern village of El- 
Azariyeh.”' Little that is ancient is now to be found. A tradition 
that dates back to an early period, points out the sites of the houses 
of Simon and of Lazarus, and the sepulchre of the latter. ‘‘ This,” 
says Porter,’ ‘‘ is a deep vault, partly excavated in the rock, and partly 
lined with masonry. The entrance is low, and opens on along, wind- 
ing, half-ruinous staircase, leading down to a small chamber, and from 
this a few steps more lead down to another smaller vault, in which 
the body of Lazarus is supposed to have lain. This situation of the 
tomb in the centre of the village scarcely agrees with the Gospel nar- 
rative, and the masonry of the interior has no appearance of antiquity. 
But the real tomb could not have been far distant.” Thomson says 
(ii. 599): *‘ By the dim light of a taper we descended very cautiously 
by twenty-five slippery steps to the reputed sepulchre of Lazarus, or 
E|l-Azariyeh, as both tomb and village are now called. ButI have 
no description of it to give, and no questions about it to ask. Itisa 
wretched concern, every way unsatisfactory, and almost disgusting.” 
Robinson denies that the sepulchre now shown could have been that 
of Lazarus. In this, Tristram agrees (B. P. 130): ‘‘It is in the mid- 
dle of the village, and most unlike the character and situation of 
Jewish sepulchres.” Edersheim supposes him to have been buried 
“in his own private tomb in a cave, and probably in a garden.” 


The impression which the miracle of the resurrection of Laz- 
arus made upon the people at large, was very great. It was in 
all its circumstances so public and so well authenticated that it 
was impossible for the most skeptical to deny it, even if it did not 
lead them to faith in Jesus. It is said (vs. 45, 46) “Then many 
of the Jews which came to Mary . . . . believed on Him. 
But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees and told 
them what things Jesus had done.” Two classes are here spoken 
of: the first, which included those who came to Mary and saw the 
things which Jesus did — all these believed; the second, other 
Jews who had not seen, and these are they who went to the 
Pharisees. (So M. and M., Godet.) From the grammatical con- 
struction, Meyer infers that those who went to the Pharisees 
were of those who believed, and that they went that they might 
testify to them of the miracle.* As all did not believe on Him, 
it is more probable that some of these unbelievers went to the 


1 Stanley, 186; Baed., 258. 2 Hand-Book, i 188. 
3 See, contra, Luthardt and Alford, in loco. 


408 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part V1. 


Pharisees, and that their motive was evil. The ecclesiastical 
rulers felt that it was now high time that something should be 
done, and they proceed at once to call a council to determine 
what steps should be taken. Their deliberations ended with the 
resolve that He should be put to death. This may be regarded 
as the decisive and final rejection of Jesus by the Jewish author- 
ities. Much earlier the Jews at Jerusalem had sought to slay 
Him as a Sabbath-breaker and blasphemer (John v. 16-18); the 
Pharisees and Herodians in Galilee had taken counsel how they 
might destroy Him (Mark iii. 6); the Sanhedrin had agreed to 
excommunicate any one who should confess that He was Christ 
(John ix. 22); on one occasion officers had been sent to arrest 
Him (John vii. 32); tumultuous attempts had been made to stone 
Him; and there was a general belief that His enemies would not 
rest till He was removed out of the way (John vii. 25). But it 
does not appear that to this time there had been a determination 
of the Sanhedrin in formal session, that He should die. It is 
questioned whether this was a formal session. It certainly was 
not a judicial one in fact, for the Lord was not before them for 
trial, but judicial in effect, since His death was then determined 
on. The miracle at Bethany, and its great popular effect, brought 
the matter to a crisis. The nation, in its highest council, 
presided over by the high priest, decided in the most solemn 
manner that the public safety demanded His death. All that 
now remained to be done was to determine how His death could 
be best effected, and formally to condemn Him. 

It is to be noticed how, in the deliberations of the Sanhe- 
drin, truth and justice were made wholly subservient to selfish 
policy. That Jesus had wrought a great and wonderful miracle 
at Bethany, was not denied. Indeed it was admitted, and made — 
the basis of their action against Him: “If we let Him thus 
alone, all will believe on Him.” Still they did not believe that — 
He wrought His miracles by the power of God, but ascribed them 
all to a satanic origin, and as wrought to deceive the people. But 
on what ground rested their fear that “the Romans would come 
and take away both their place and nation”? It seems plain 
that they did not look upon Jesus as one who, under any cir- 
cumstances, could fulfill their Messianic hopes, and establish a 
victorious kingdom. Even if all were to believe on Him, and 








Part V1.] THE COUNSEL OF CAIAPHAS. 409 


He should set up Himself as King, He could not resist the 
Romans. This strikingly shows how little the impression made 
by the character of Jesus, His works and teachings, corresponded 
to the prevalent conceptions of the Messiah. It was to the 
Pharisees impossible, that He, the teacher, the prophet, should 
become the !eader of armies, the asserter of their national righis, 
the warrior like David. They felt that in Him their hopes 
never could be fulfilled. His growing popularity with the peo- 
ple, if it led to insurrection, could only bring upon them severer 
oppression. In this point of view, it was better that He should 
die, whatever might be His miraculous powers, than that all 
through Him should perish. 

If, as the narrative plainly implies, the Sanhedrin held its 
session as soon as possible after the knowledge of the resurrec- 
tion of Lazarus reached it, the Lord’s departure to Ephraim 
could not have been long delayed. He could not remain in 
Bethany without each hour putting His lifein peril. According 
to Edersheim (ii. 326), He remained in Bethany Friday and Sat- 
urday, and the next day went to Ephraim. That He wentsecretly 
to Ephraim, appears from the commandment given by the chief 
priests and Pharisees that “if any man knew where He were, 
he should show it, that they might take Him.” Yet the Twelve 
seem to have accompanied Him, or, which is more probable, to 
have gathered to Him there, and possibly Lazarus was with 
them. It is not improbable that others, also, may have resorted 
to Him. The mention of Salome (Matt. xx. 20) does not show 
that the women with the Lord went to Ephraim. 


Of the city Ephraim, in which He took refuge, little is known, and 
different sites have been assigned it. In Joshua xviii. 23, mention is 
made of an Ophrah as one of the cities of Benjamin, and in 2 Chron- 
icles xiii. 19, of an Ephron, or Ephrain, in connection with Bethel 
and Jeshanah. Josephus’ speaks of an Ephraim in connection with 
Bethela, or Bethel. It was a small town lying in the mountainous 
district of Judah, and was captured by Vespasian. Eusebius mentions 
an Ephron as lying eight Roman miles north of Jerusalem, but Jerome,? 
who mentions the same place, puts it at twenty miles. Lightfoot 
identifies the Ephraim of Chronicles, of Josephus, and of the text.* 


1 War, iv. 9. 9. 2 Raumer, 171. 
* So Tischendorf, Wieseler. 
im 


410 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VL 


That the Ephron of Eusebius and Jerome is the same place can 
scarcely be questioned, and their conflicting statements as to its dis- 
tance from Jerusalem may be explained, as Robinson does, by the 


supposition that the latter corrects the former. Wieseler maintains ~ 


that Eusebius is right. Proceeding upon these data, Robinson thinks 
that he finds the site of Ephraim in the modern Taiyibeh, which is 
situated about twenty Roman miles northeast of Jerusalem, and some 
five or six miles northeast of Bethel, upon a lofty hill, overlooking 
all the valleys of the Jordan, and said by Tristram to be * peculiarly 
isolated and secluded, truly ‘the lonely Ephraim.’” This identifica- 
tion is accepted by many.’ Ebrard, however, denies that the Ephraim 
of Josephus can be identified with that of the Evangelist, and places 
the latter southeast from Jerusalem, because Jesus on His way 
from it to Jerusalem passed through Jericho. Sepp places it in the 
land of Gilead; Luthardt regards its position as doubtful; Eders- 
heim, starting from the statement that it was ‘‘near the wilder- 
ness,” and finding this wilderness in the north of Pera (see Luke viii. 
29), places it east of the Jordan and close to Galilee. This position 
has this in its favor that it would have given a safer retreat. 


Fresruary — Marca, 783. <A. D. 30. 


In Ephraim the Lord abides with the disciples till the JoHN xi. 54-57. 
approach of the Passover. A little before the feast, 
many go up out of the country to Jerusalem to perform 
the necessary purifications, and there is much discussion 
as to the probability of His presence. He leaves Ephraim, 
and begins His journey toward Jerusalem, passing 
along the border line of Samaria and Galilee. Upon the 
way He meets and heals ten lepers. Being asked by the LUKE xvii. 11-19. 
Pharisees when the kingdom of God shall come, He replies, LUKE xvii. 20-37. 
and adds the parable of the unjust judge. To certain 
self-righteous persons He speaks the parable of the Luke xviii. 1-14. 
Pharisee and the publican. He replies to the question of Matt. xix. 3-12. 
the Pharisees respecting divorce. Little children are MARK x. 2-12. 
brought to Him, whom He blesses. As He is journeying, MartrT. xix. 13-15. 
a young man follows Him to know how he may inherit Mark x. 13-16. 
eternal life. Jesus bids him sell all that he has and LuKE xviii. 15-30. 
follow Him, and proceeds to address the disciples upon Marr. xix. 16-30 
the dangers incident to riches. In answer to Peter, He Mark x. 17-31. * 
speaks of the rewards that shall be given to the Twelve, 
and toall faithful disciples. He adds the parable of the Marr. xx. 1-16, 
laborers in the vineyard. 


1 So, Ritter, Porter, Lange, Lichtenstein, Smith’s Dict. of Bible, Ellicott, Condet 
Tristram. 











Part VI.] SITE OF EPHRAIM. 41 


Supposing the Lord to have gone to Bethany — Bethabara— 
beyond Jordan, immediately after the Feast of Dedication, or in 
the latter part of December, and that He remained there several 
weeks before He heard that Lazarus was sick, we may put His 
departure to Ephraim in the latter part of February or early in 
March. Here He continued till the Passover, which fell this 
year on the seventh of April. He was thus at Ephraim several 
weeks. How was this time spent? It is said by some,’ that He 
may have made excursions to the neighboring villages, or even 
to the Jordan valley. But, as His object in seeking this secluded 
spot on the edge of the wilderness was to avoid the observation 
of His enemies till the appointed hour had come, how could He 
go about the country teaching and preaching? The place of His 
retreat must thus have come very speedily to the knowledge of 
the Pharisees. How little the people at large knew where He was, 
appears from the fact that those who went up early to the feast 
out of the country,’ sought Him at Jerusalem. Besides, the posi- 
tion of Ephraim, though well fitted for seclusion, was not so for 
teaching. We conclude, then, as the narrative plainly implies, 
that He was spending the few days that remained to Him, not 
amidst crowds, nor renewing in some scattered villages the labors 
of His early ministry, but in the society of His disciples, teach- 
ing them such truths as they could receive, and preparing them 
for their labors after He should Himself be taken from them. 
Doubtless, also, this period gave Him many desired opportuni- 
ties of solitary communion with His Father. 

The fact that He had been present at the last two feasts in 
Jerusalem led the people to expect that Jesus would also be 
present at the Passover. But, on the other hand, as He had with- 
drawn from public observation, and as the Jews had endeavored 
to learn the place of His concealment in order to arrest Him, 
they thought it doubtful whether He would dare to come and 
brave their enmity. That many should assemble some days 
before the feast, was made neceesary by the laws respecting 
purification.? 

1 So Robinson. Har., 201. 

® Some suppose “the country” to be the region about Ephraim, so Baumlein; 


others. the country in general as contrasted with Jerusalem; so Meyer. 
& See Numbers ix. 10, and Ainsworth’s note; 2 Chron. xxx. 17. 


412 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VL 


We meet here the very difficult point, the route by which Jesus 
went from Ephraim to Bethany. Upon this neither Matthew, Mark, 
nor John give any light. Does the statement of Luke (xvii. 11) find its 
right place here: ‘‘And it came to pass as He went to Jerusalem, 
that He passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee”? (For 
da pécov, Tisch., W. and Hort. have &a wécov ; in R. V. margin, ‘* be- 
tween Samaria and Galilee”; Vulgate, transibat per mediam.) Some 
think that He passed through Samaria and Galilee. But this cannot be 
the meaning, as the goal was Jerusalem in the south, and to go through 
Samaria, and then Galilee, was to go north. Most, therefore, under- 
stand the words, that He went eastwards between the two provinces, 
having Samaria on His right hand and Galilee on His left. (So Meyer, 
Godet, Keil, Eders.; Lightfoot thinks that Persea may be meant here 
under the term Galilee, and refers to Luke iii. 1, where Galilee 
includes Perea.) But how did He reach the border line from 
Ephraim? If we identify Ephraim with the modern Taiyibeh, the 
distance to the border was not great. If He left the former in the 
morning, He would reach the frontier in the afternoon. But what was 
His motive in thus going northward ? It is said by some that it was 
to meet a pilgrim caravan, which having assembled in Galilee, would 
proceed ulong its southern border down to the Jordan, and go thence 
to Jerusalem by way of Jericho. This is not improbable. If His 
Galilean disciples and friends formed such a caravan, it was easy for 
Him to join them with His apostles.! 

That He was accompanied by others than the Twelve appears from 
the statement (Matt. xx. 17) that ‘‘ He took them apart in the way ”; 
and from the mention of Salome (verse 20). As the time for conceal- 
ment was now past, and it was His purpose to enter Jerusalem with 
all publicity, it is probable that He directed His course from Ephraim 
northward with a view to meet the pilgrims from Galilee. So soon as 
He came into the valley of the Jordan, He would meet the larger pro- 
cessions that came from the neighborhood of the Sea of Galilee by the 
road down the west bank of the river; and in the neighborhood of 
Jericho would meet those that crossed the ford from the eastern side. 
What multitudes attended the feasts, especially this feast, appears from 
Josephus.? From actual count, it was shown that at a given Passover 
256,500 paschal lambs were slain; and allowing ten persons to each 
lamb, which was the smallest allowable number, the participants 
amounted to 2,565,000 persons. Admitting that this number is greatly 


1 It does not seem necessary, with McKnight, Edersheim, and others to put Eph- 
raim in northern Pera, and near Galilee; but such a position would afford an easier ex 
Planation of His presence on the frontier. 

2 War, vi 9. 3. 





Part VI.] JESUS DEPARTS FROM EPHRAIM. 413 


exaggerated, there is no question that immense multitudes were always 
present; and all the roads leading to Jerusalem, for several days be- 
fore and after the feasts, were thronged with passengers. 

As to the name or position of the village where the ten lepers met 
Him, we know nothing more than that it was on the border of 
Samaria. It would seem, from the gathering together of so many 
lepers in one place apparently to meet Him, that the Lord’s journey 
was widely known. The title by which they address Him, ‘‘ Jesus, 
Master,” indicates faith in Him as a prophet rather than as Messiah. 


When or where the question of the Pharisees (Luke xvii. 20) 
respecting the coming of the kingdom of God, was addressed to 
Him, we have no data to determine. It is probable that He 
was now in Pera, and these may have been in fact the same 
Pharisees whom He had rebuked before. The point of the 
question concerns the time: When wilt Thou, now announcing 
Thyself as the Messiah, visibly set up Thy kingdom? Probably 
it was asked in mockery, or to tempt Him; but, if honestly 
meant, it could not be answered as a matter of mere chronology. 
The words, “The kingdom is within you” (in the R. V. margin, 
‘in the midst of you”), is best understood with Meyer: “It was 
in the midst of them so far as He the Messiah was and worked 
among them; for where He was and worked, there was the 
Messianic kingdom.” (See Godet, who says, ‘‘almost all modern 
interpreters explain, ‘in the midst of you,’” though he opposes 
it.) The words that follow to the disciples (verses 22-37) contain 
many expressions almost identical with those afterward em- 
ployed by Him in His discourses respecting the destruction of 
Jerusalem (Matt. xxiv), giving some reason to believe that they 
are here recorded out of their order. (See, however, Meyer, 
in loco; Eders., li. 328, thinks them in the right place here.) 

The parable of the unjust judge stands in obvious connection 
with the discourse immediately preceding; but that of the 
publican and the Pharisee may have been spoken later. 

The question concerning divorce is found both in Matthew 
and Mark, and is the first event related by them im their account 
of the last journey from Galilee to Judea. Whether it belongs 
here, or took place earlier, we have no data to determine; 
but it stands in obvious connection with what is reported in 
Luke xvi. 18. Being mentioned, however, by them both just 


414 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. {Part VL 


before the incident of the blessing of the children, which Luke 
also mentions, this seems the most fitting place. Perhaps this 
question may refer to the disputes of the Jewish schools, one of 
which permitted divorces for many causes, even very slight 
ones; the other only for adultery.’ 

All the Synoptists mention the blessing of the children. It 
is plain that their parents were those who honored the Lord and 
valued His blessing; and it shows that the enmity of the Phari- 
sees was by no means general among the people. Perhaps it 
may point to His near departure from this scene of labor.2? The 
demand of Jesus upon the young ruler to sell all that he had 
and give to the poor, was something unexpected. Such a de- 
mand was totally at variance with the popular conceptions of the 
Messianic kingdom, in which all Jews confidently believed that 
every form of temporal blessing would abound. The question 
of Peter indicates how much his thoughts were engrossed with 
the rewards and honors of that kingdom, which all now thought 
to be near at hand. The prophets had spoken of a new heaven 
and earth, and probably the apostles connected them in some 
indistinct way with “the regeneration,” and the Messianic reign. 


Marca, 783. A.D. 30. 


Upon the way to Jerusalem the disciples are amazed Mark x. 32-34. 
and filled with fear, beholding Jesus going before them. Marv. xx. 17-19. 
He announces to the Twelve privately His approaching LUKE xviii. 31-34. 
death and resurrection, but His words are not under- 
stood. Afterward James and John, with their mother Marr. xx. 20-28. 
Salome, come to Him, asking for the seats of honor in MarkkK x, 35-45. 
His kingdom. He denies their request. The jealousy 
of the other apostles. 


Upon the way, and probably soon after reaching the valley 
of the Jordan, or at least before arriving at Jericho, He took 
the Twelve apart, and announced to them, for the third time, 
His approaching death, but with greater particularity than be- 
fore. He now speaks of the mode of His death: that it must 
be by crucifixion; that He should be delivered unto chief priests 
and scribes, and be by them condemned to death, and delivered 


1 Lightfoot, on Matt. v. 31 and xix. 3; Eders., ii. 382. 
2 See Oosterzee, on Luke xviii. 15. 























Part VI.] JESUS ON THE WAY TO JERUSALEM. 415 


unto the Gentiles, who should mock, and scourge, and kill Him. 
That this announcement was made early in the journey, appears 
from the use of the present tense: ‘‘ Behold, we go up to Jerusa- 
lem.”* Mark adds, “And Jesus went before them; and they 
were amazed; and as they followed they were afraid.”? 
(R. V., “and they that followed were afraid.”) As this 
amazement and fear were previous to His informing them 
what was about to befall Him, it indicates that there was 
something unusual in His manner, something that awed and 
appalled them. Luke informs us that, notwithstanding thé 
Lord’s words were so plain and express, “‘they understood none 
of these things, and this saying was hid from them, neither 
knew they the things which were spoken.” An undefined sense 
that some great and awful event was impending, seems for a 
little while to have had possession of their minds; but, even now, 
of its real nature they had no just conceptions. They knew 
why He had sought refuge in Ephraim, and that to go to 
Jerusalem was to expose Himself to the deadly malice of the 
Pharisees (John xi. 8 and 16), and momentary doubts of the 
result troubled and depressed them. Yet, on the other hand, 
they had seen so many proofs of His mighty power in Galilee, 
and the resurrection of Lazarus was so fresh in their memories, 
that they could not believe that His life could be taken by 
violence, or against His will. That He should voluntarily yield 
Himself up as a victim, was wholly inconceivable; and His 
plainest words could not change their long preconceived and 
deeply-rooted opinions as to the nature of the Messianic king- 
dom. All His predictions respecting His sufferings and death, 
though explicit in the letter, they so interpreted as to harmonize 
with a victory over all His enemies, and a triumphant reign. As 
said by Alexander: ‘The correct understanding does not de- 
pend upon the plainness of the language, but upon the principle 
of interpretation.” 

A striking commentary upon Luke’s statement, that the dis- 


1 See Lichtenstein, 370. 

2 Meyer, following a different reading, makes two parties: some who remained 
behind in their amazement, and others who followed Him, but with fear. See R. V. 
margin. Keil distinguishes the two parties: the first, the Twelve; the second, His 
disciples among the crowd following Him. 


416 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VL 


ciples understood none of the Lord’s words, is found in the 
request of Salome that her two sons, James and John, might 
fill the highest places in His kingdom. It has already been 
noted, that the sending out of the Seventy, and the peculiar 
character of this journey to Jerusalem, had awakened strong 
expectations that the day was very near when He would 
openly and successfully assert His claims to the throne of His 
father David. Perhaps Salome and her sons may have had in 
mind His promise, spoken earlier (Matt. xix. 28), that the 
twelve apostles should sit in the regeneration on twelve thrones, 
judging the twelve tribes of Israel, and believed that the time 
for its fulfillment was near. The request was made by her in 
person, but her sons were also present, and the Lord’s reply was 
addressed to them. Probably it was made some few hours after 
He had spoken to the Twelve of His sufferings and death; per- 
haps when they were drawing near to Jericho, and had already 
been joined by troops of the pilgrims on their way to the feast. 
The excitement of the occasion, the tumult of the multitude, 
and the joy and honor with which the Lord was greeted, would 
naturally drive from their minds the sombre impression of the 
earlier part of the journey. What the expectations of most of 
those who accompanied Him were, clearly appears from Luke’s 
words (xix. 11): “They thought that the kingdom of God 
should immediately appear.” Under these circumstances, it 
was not strange that Salome and her sons should present their 
request. 


Marcu, 783. A.D. 30. 


As in company with the crowd of pilgrims He ap- LUKE xviii. 35-43. 
proaches Jericho, two blind men, sitting by the way- Marr. xx. 29-34. 
side begging, address Him as the Son of David, be- Mark x. 46-52. 
seeching Him to restore their sight. He heals them, 
and they follow Him. Entering Jericho, He meets Luke xix. 1-10. 
Zaccheus, and goes to his house, where He remains 
during the night. In the morning, when about to de- 
part, He speaks to the people the parable of the pounds. LUKE xix. 11-28. 
He leaves Jericho, and the same day reaches Bethany, 
near Jerusalem. 


The account of the healing of the blind men is differently re 
lated by the Synoptists, both as to the place and the number of 





Part VI.] HEALING OF BLIND MEN AT JERICHO. 41? 


persons. Matthew and Mark make it to have taken place as 
Jesus was leaving Jericho; Luke, as He was entering it. 
Matthew mentions two blind men; Mark and Luke mention 
but one. Of these discrepancies there are several solutions : 

ist. — That three blind men were healed: the one mentioned 
by Luke, as He approached the city; the two mentioned by 
Matthew, as He was leaving the city.'. Some, as Osiander and 
Pound, make four to have been healed. 

2d.— That one was healed on His entry into the city, the other, 
on His departure.? According to this solution, Matthew com- 
bines the two in one, and, deeming the exact time and place un- 
important, represents them as both occurring at the departure of 
the Lord from the city. 

3d.— That two were healed, and both at His entry; but 
one being better known than the other, he only is mentioned by 
Mark and Luke.* 

4th. — That one of the blind men sought to be healed as the 
Lord approached the city, but was not; that the next morning, 
joining himself to another, they waited for Him by the gate as 
He was leaving the city, and were both healed together. Luke, 
in order to preserve the unity of his narrative, relates the heal- 
ing of the former as if it had taken place on the afternoon of 
the entry.* 

5th.— That only one was healed, and he when the Lord left 
the city; and that Matthew, according to his custom, uses the 
plural where the other Evangelists use the singular.® 

6th.— That Luke’s variance with Matthew and Mark, in re- 
gard to place, may be removed by interpreting (xviii. 35) “as 
He was come nigh to Jericho,” in the general sense of being 
near to Jericho, but without defining whether He was approach- 
ing to it or departing from it. Its meaning here is determined 
by Matthew and Mark: He was leaving the city, but still near 
to it. Keil’s solution is that Luke puts the healing of the blind 
man before the entrance into the city in order that he may give 


1 Kitto, Augustine, Morrison. 
2 Lightfoot, Ebrard, Krafft, Tischendorf, Wieseler, Bucher, Lex, Neander. 
3 Doddridge, Newcome, Lichtenstein, Friedlieb. 
* Bengel, Stier, Trench, Ellicott. See a modification of this view in McKnight, 
and another in Lange on Matt. xx. 30. 
5 Oosterzee on Luke; Da Costa. 
18* 


418 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VL 


the account of Zaccheus and the parable following without inter- 
ruption.’ 

Other solutions of the discrepancy in regard to place have 
been given; as by Newcome,’ that Jesus spent several days at 
Jericho, that He went out of the city as mentioned by Matthew 
and Mark, for a temporary purpose, and that on His return He 
healed the blind men; by McKnight,* preferred by Farrar, that 
there were two Jerichos, old and new, and the blind men, sitting 
on the road between them, were healed as the Lord was depart- 
ing from one and entering the other; by Paulus (iii. 44), that 
there was a multitude of pilgrims with Jesus, and that the front 
ranks of the procession were leaving the city as He was entering 
it. Riddle refers Luke xviii. 35 to the first approach to the city, 
and xix. 1, to the final departure from it. 

Olshausen and Riggenbach decline to attempt to harmonize 
the accounts, regarding the differences as unimportant. Meyer 
and DeWette suppose the Evangelists to have followed different 
traditions, and find the discrepancies invincible. With them 
Alford agrees in substance: ‘“ The only fair account of such dif- 
ferences is, that they existed in the sources from which each Evan- 
gelist took his narrative.” The supposition that two were healed 
separately, or that there were two distinct miracles combined by 
Matthew in one, he characterizes as “perfectly monstrous, and 
would at once destroy the credit of Matthew as a truthful re- 
lator.” Norton (ii. 302) observes: “The difference in the ac- 
counts of the Evangelists is entirely unimportant except as serv- 
ing to show that they are independent historians; and it is idle 
to try to make them agree by the forced suppositions to which 
some commentators have resorted.” It is most probable that 
two were healed, though one only is mentioned by Mark and 
Luke. 


Jericho — This city in the Lord’s day was one of much importance, 
probably among the Judzan cities second only to Jerusalem. It was 
of great antiquity because of its position, being on the west side of 
the large plain of the Jordan, which, well watered by the large fount 
ain and by streams from the western hills, was very productive. The 


1 Grotius on Matt. xx. 30; Clericus, Diss. ii., Canon vi.; Pilkington, cited in Town 
send, Robinson, Jarvis, Owen. 
2 Har., 2%. 3 Har., ii. 93. 





Part VI.] JESUS AT HCUSE OF ZACCHAUS. 419 


position of the city was several times changed: its original site was 
probably near Elisha’s fountain (2 Kings 11, 19-22) —’Ain es-Sultan— 
the Jericho of the Roman period more to the south; the modern Jeri- 
cho — Es-Riha — is about two miles southeast. ‘‘ Back of the fount- 
ain,” says Robinson, ‘‘ rises up the tall and perpendicular face of the 
mountain Quarantana.” Another fountain—’Ain Dik— which is 
said to be as large or larger than the first, lies some two or three 
miles northwest of it. Destroyed by Joshua, Jericho was subse- 
quently rebuilt, and here in Elisha’s day were the schools of the 
prophets (2 Kings ii. 5). It was a favorite city of Herod the Great; 
here he built a hippodrome and here he died (Joseph., Antiq., xxii. 10); 
here his son Archelaus built or rebuilt a palace. The region being 
rich in palms, the city was sometimes called ‘‘the city of palms.” 
Most tropical fruits flourished there, and especially balsams from 
which large revenues were derived. This Jericho had considerable 
commercial importance, and lying on the caravan route from Damas- 
cus, was a place of toll. Being near the mountain passes leading up 
to Jerusalem and Bethel, and commanding the lower fords of the 
Jordan, it was of much consequence in a military point of view, and 
here the Romans in the Lord’s day had a garrison. It was also the 
last station through which the pilgrims passed who came from Galilee 
by way of the Jordan valley and then from Perma. 

It is to be noted that Jericho was one of the cities where many 
priests resided at this time; about one-half of the whole number is 
said to have dwelt permanently in Jerusalem, and a large part of the 
residue in Jericho.‘ Probably the same feeling of dislike to the Lord 
that prevailed among the priests at Jerusalem, prevailed here. There 
is no mention of any ministry by the Lord there except at this time. 

The present Jericho is composed of hovels inhabited by some sixty 
families. Robinson (ii. 554) speaks of it as ‘‘the most miserable and 
filthy that he saw in Palestine.” Very recently the Russians have be- 
gun some building here. 


None of the Evangelists state at what time of the day Jesus 
ceached Jericho, but it was probably in the afternoon. The 
distance to Jerusalem, about seventeen miles, and the nature of 
the country through which the road passed, may have made it 
difficult or impossible to go on to Bethany that night, and there 
was no intervening village where they could encamp. That 
Jesus did spend the night at Jericho appears from His words to 
Zaccheus (Luke xix. 5): “To-day I must abide at tkz house,” 


1 Lightfoot, Temple Service, 49; Eders., The Temple, 59. 


420 ‘THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. pParn VL 


and from the murmurings of the people (verse 7): ‘*That He 
was gone to be a guest (xataAvoac) with a man that is a sinner.” 
This visit of the Lord to the house of a publican, although a 
chief among his class and rich, did not escape strong animad 
version. It was regarded by the people at large, and perhaps 
also by some of His own disciples, as an act unworthy of His 
high claims. In popular estimation, publicans, whose calling so 
odiously reminded them of Roman domination, were no fit hosts 
for Him whom they fondly believed to be now on His way to 
Jerusalem to proclaim Himself the King. The conversation 
between the Lord and Zacchwus (verses 8-10) apparently took 
place in the court of his house, or near the entrance, where the 
crowd had followed. Olshausen supposes it to have been on the 
morning of His departure, but there is no good ground for this. 
It is not certain where the parable of the nobleman (verses 11— 
27) was spoken, but it would seem from the connection that He 
was still standing by the door of Zacchzus’ house.? Some, who 
suppose that He merely passed a few hours with Zacchzus, and 
then journeyed on toward Bethany the same day, make all from 
verse 8 to 27 to have been spoken at His departure. We need 
not, however, understand verse 28 as meaning that immediately 
after He had uttered the parable, He went up to Jerusalem. 

Of Zaccheus little more is kaown than is here related. He 
was not, as some have said, a heathen, but, as appears both from 
his name and from verse 9, of Jewish descent. He was a chief 
publican or head collector of the taxes, having the other publi- 
cans of that region under him. Jericho was rich in balsams, 
and therefore much toll was collected here. According to tra- 
dition, Zacchzus became bishop of Cesarea. A tower, standing 
in the modern village of Riha, is still shown as the “house of 
Zacchzus.” 


1 For the usage of xaradvoat, see Luke ix. 12; so Meyer, Alford, Greswell, Lich 
tenstein, T. G. Lex. 

2 So Meyer, Lichtenstein. 3 Oosterzee, in loco; Stier, iv. 318. 

4 So Meyer, Alford. 














PART VIL. 


FROM THE ARRIVAL AT BETHANY TO THE RESURRECTION; OR, 
FROM MARCH 3ist [8TH NISAN] TO APRIL 97x [17TH NISAN], 783. 
A. D. 30. 


This period, from the arrival at Bethany to the resurrection, 
aay be divided into two parts; the first embracing the close of 
the Lord’s active ministry; the second, the paschal supper, His 
arrest, and the events following till He left the sepulchre. His 
work in Jerusalem was in substance of the same nature as in 
Perzea — a witness to Himself as the Messiah. But He was now 
in a new position. He stood face to face with His declared ene- 
mies, who had already condemned Him to death, and were wait- 
ing only for a fitting opportunity to carry their determination into 
effect. He would that Caiaphas and all the rulers should know 
that “the one man who should die for the people” (John xi. 50), 
was their King. He therefore enters the city as the King, the 
Son of David. He goes into the temple, and for the second 
ime cleanses it; He asserts His prerogative as the Judge in 
she symbolical withering of the fig tree. In His parables, He 
teaches the rulers that they had been false to their trust as the 
husbandmen of God’s vineyard; and that as their fathers had 
killed His prophets and messengers, so they were about to kill 
His Son, the Heir; that they would not come to the marriage sup- 
per of the King’s Son, though all things were ready, but were 
despising the call and would slay His servants. Thus He made 
plain the enormity of the crime they were about to commit, one 
far greater than any which their fathers had committed in killing 
the prophets; and foretold that their punishment would be as their 
crime. God would destroy these husbandmen, and give the vine- 
yard to others; His holy city would be burnt up, and His ser- 
vants sent into the highways to bring in the believing Gentiles. 
Thus the Lord showed to His enemies that He knew that His 
death was at hand, and warned them of the terrible conse 
(421) 


422 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


quences to themselves and to the nation of their act. His mur- 
der, which they meant to be for their salvation, would become 
their destruction. At last, in the audience of all the people and 
in the temple, He pronounced upon them the seven-fold woe, 
whose burden remains to this day. 

But while thus severe to His unrelenting enemies, denounc- 
ing their iniquity in the majesty of His righteousness, He yet 
shows Himself to be the Saviour by healing the lame and blind 
who come to Him in the temple. He teaches them that the 
scanty offerings of the very poorest, as seen in the widow's mite, 
are acceptable to God. Notwithstanding the great influence 
which His enemies had over the popular mind, it is plain that for 
some days He had in a large degree the sympathy and approval 
of the people. It is said by Luke that “all the people were 
very attentive to hear Him”; and by Mark, that “they sought 
to lay hold on Him, but feared the people”; and by John, that 
“among the chief rulers also many believed on Him,” but were 
afraid to confess Him. Apparently, it needed but a word from 
Him to have set the nation ablaze. But He knew that the 
hour of the kingdom had not yet come; and now, as in the 
wilderness, He would not take His throne till given Him by His 
Father’s hand. To His disciples He gave but little direct teach- 
ing, though His answers to the questions of the scribes and Sad- 
duces, and His parables, must have been full of instruction for 
them. But the discourses especially addressed to them, the pro- 
phetic opening of the future of Jerusalem and of the people; 
the promise of His return, the tribulation that should precede it, 
and the parables descriptive of several phases of the judgment; 
and also, the promise of the Comforter to abide during His per- 
sonal absence, were probably very imperfectly understood at the 
time, nor could they have apprehended with any clearness the 
meaning of His great prayer of intercession. 


Fripay, 31st Marcu, 8tH NisaNn— Saturpay, 1st APRIL, 
9TH NISAN. 


Arriving at Bethany, He abides there for the night. JouN xii. 1-9. 
The next day He sups with Simon, the leper —Lazarus, Mart, xxyi. 6-13 
Martha, and Mary being present. Here He is anointed Mark xiy. 3-9, 
by Mary, while Judas and others are angry at so great 








—s 


Part VII] ARRIVAL AT BETHANY. 423 


waste. At even, many come out of Jerusalem to see 
Him and Lazarus. The rulers in the city hearing this, JouHN xii. 10, 11. 
consult how they may put Lazarus also to death. 


The date of the arrival at Bethany is to be determined from 
the statement of John (xii. 1), that He came “six days before 
the Passover.” But how shall these six days be reckoned ?' 
Shall both extremes, the day of His arrival and the first day of 
the Passover, be included, or both excluded? or one included 
and one excluded? The latter mode of computation is more 
generally received. Adopting this mode, we reckon from the 
Passover exclusive to the day of arrival inclusive. But here a 
new question meets us: What day shall be reckoned as the first. 
of the Passover, the 14th or 15th Nisan? The language of 
Moses is (Levit. xxiii. 5), ‘In the fourteenth day of the first 
month at even is the Lord’s Passover.” Counting backward 
from the fourteenth and excluding it, the sixth day, or the day 
of the arrival at Bethany, was the 8th Nisan. What day of the 
week was this? If the fourteenth fell on Thursday, the eighth 
was on Friday preceding; if on Friday, the eighth was on 
Saturday, or the Jewish Sabbath.’ 





| | | | 














in- | 7 | wis | Gres- 
a foe | "Thursday. ae "Tine, | eae | Strong. | well 
| | 
/ | 
Grae ts Friday | March 31} Nisan 8 | Saturday) -.- 6 
5 | 6 | Saturday; April 1 ** 9 | Sunday 6 5 
4 5 | Sunday ng Sipe cs €10s aMonday. 5 4 
3 4 | Monday as “ 11 | Tuesday 4 3 
2 3 | Tuesday eit) se) Ded ni Sd yt oe 2 
1 2 |Wedn’sd’y} “ 5 | ‘“ 18 |Thursday| 2 | 1 
as 1 |Thursday; ‘“ 6 S45) Airidaye | ot at 
== .. | Friday as it ial 5 2 A ee Seed Say tes 





Owing to these differences in the modes of computation, very 
different results are reached by harmonists. Robinson, includ- 
ing both extremes, and counting from the fourteenth, or Thurs- 
day, makes Him to have arrived on Saturday, the ninth. 
Strong, computing the same way, but making the fourteenth tc 
fall on Friday, makes the arrival on Sunday, the ninth. Gres 


} So Meyer, Alford. 


424 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


well, including one extreme, and placing the Passover on Fri- 
day, the fourteenth, makes it to have been on Saturday. Most, 
however, making the fourteenth Thursday, place it on Friday 
the eighth.’ And this seems, on other grounds, the most likely. 
That Jesus would, without necessity, travel on the Sabbath, 
we cannot suppose; much less that He would go on that day 
from Jericho to Bethany, a distance of fourteen or fifteen miles.” 
Caspari thinks that He remained with Zacchezus at Jericho over 
the Sabbath, and on Sunday went to Bethany. Some, as Robin- 
son, suppose that He went on Saturday only a Sabbath day’s 
journey; but that He should have come on Friday so near to 
Bethany and then have encamped, to finish the journey after 
sunset of the Sabbath, is not probable. The supposition of 
Greswell that He spent the night at the house of Zaccheus, who 
lived between Jericho and Bethany, and went on to Bethany the 
next day, is wholly without proof, and besides, does not meet 
the difficulty. We infer that He did journey directly from 
Jericho to Bethany; first, from the fact that the whole interven- 
ing country is a wilderness, without city or village, where no 
one would, without necessity, spend the night; second, that He 
was with the crowd of pilgrims, whose course was direct to 
Jerusalem, and who would naturally so arrange their movements 
as to reach it before the Sabbath. From Matthew (xxi. 1) and 
Mark (xi. 1) it might be inferred that the Lord went on at once 
to Jerusalem, without stopping at Bethany, as said by John. 
But the silence of the Synoptists is not a contradiction; it does 
not exclude such a stop. All that took place from the departure 
from Jericho to the arrival at the Mount of Olives is passed over. 
There is nothing to forbid us to insert a stop at Bethany for a 
night and day, and longer, if we have other sources of informa- 
tion. 

We can easily understand why the Lord should desire to 
stop at Bethany rather than go on to the city. Here He found 
repose and peace in a household whose members were bound 
to Him by the strongest ties; and here, in seclusion and quiet, 
He could prepare Himself for the trials and anguish of the 


1 Friedlieb, Bucher, Wieseler, Lichtenstein, Tholuck, Keil. 
2 Wieseler, 378. 











Part VII.] SUPPER AT BETHANY. 425 


coming week; and this continued to be His home till His 
arrest. 

The distance from Jericho to Jerusalem is, according to 
Josephus, a hundred and fifty furlongs; and from the Jor- 
dan to Jericho, sixty. From Jericho to Bethany is about fifteen 
miles; and all travellers agree in describing the way as most 
difficult and dreary. 

It is much disputed when the supper was made for the 
Lord. John merely says, xii.1: “Then Jesus, six days before the 
Passover, came to Bethany . . . there they made Him a supper.” 
This does not determine whether the supper was upon the day 
of His arrival, or the next, or even later; still the more obvious 
interpretation is, that it was that day, or the next. Healso gives 
us another note of time, in verse 12: ‘‘On the next day much 
people . . . . took branches of palm trees.” 

But to what is this ‘““next day” related? to the events imme- 
diately preceding (verses 9, 10) —the visit of many of the Jews 
to Bethany and the consultation of the chief priests —or to the 
day of His arrival at Bethany; or to the supper? If to the con- 
sultation of the priests, as by Friedlieb, the day is undetermined; 
if to the day of His arrival, as by Meyer, the supper must have 
been on the evening of that day; if to the feast, as by M. and M., 
we are still uncertain. Those who put His arrival at Bethany 
on Saturday or on Sunday, put the supper on the evening of the 
same day; but most of those who put the arrival on Friday, put 
the supper on the evening of the next day, or Sabbath evening. 
And this seems most probable if we understand the words, 
“There they made Him a supper,” to mean that it was a supper 
given specially in His honor, and not an ordinary repast. 
It is so understood by Westcott: ‘‘They, the people of the vil- 
lage”; and by Godet, who connects the “ therefore” — otv — of 
verse second with the mention of the resurrection of Lazarus in 
the first verse. In this case, some time would be needed for 
preparation, and this was gained if the feast was on the day fol- 
lowing His arrival. We can also thus easily explain the pres- 
ence of the Jews from Jerusalem, the sojourn of the Lord at 
Bethany over the Sabbath giving opportunity for all who wished 
to visit Him. 


426 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. |Part VIL. 


\ But the more common opinion is, that the supper was given 
either by the family of Lazarus, or by Simon the leper. That 
it was at the house of Simon is said by Mark (xiv. 3), and the 
more natural understanding is, that it was made by him. It 
is in favor of this that Lazarus is mentioned as “one that sat 
at meat with Jesus,” apparently one of the invited guests; for if 
the supper had been given by himself or by his sisters, his pres- 
ence would have been taken asa matter of course. But this is by 
no means convincing; even if at his own table the peculiar position 
in which he stood as one raised from the dead, would cause special 
mention of him. That-¥‘Martha served,” does not show that 
she was in her own house; her feeling of gratitude would impel 
her to render her service in the house of a friend or neighbor. 
There is nothing that enables us to decide positively where the 
supper was given; Meyer, who supposes it to have been made 
by Martha on the evening of the day of His arrival, describes it 
as only “the usual domestic entertainment a little more richly 
set forth.” Of this Simon nothing is known but what is implied 
in thename “leper.” He is generally supposed to have been healed 
by the Lord. One tradition makes him to have been the father 
of Lazarus; another, the husband of Martha (Winer, ii. 464). 

We meet here the question whether the supper mentioned by 
Matthew (xxvi. 6-13) and Mark (xiv. 3-9) is identical with that 
of John (xii. 2-8.) They have all in common an anointing of 
the Lord, but differ as to the time; John putting this supper six 
days before Passover, the Synoptists two days. Lightfoot makes 
them on this ground to be distinct: one given by Lazarus on the 
evening of the Sabbath, the 9th Nisan; the other, given by Simon 
on Tuesday evening, the 12th Nisan.’ Most identify the two, 
but do not agree as to the time, some affirming that John puts 
it in its right order, and that the Synoptists mention it later only 
for the purpose of explanation; others, that John anticipates it, 
and that the Synoptists have the right order.? A closeexamination 
of Matthew and Mark shows us that their account of the supper 


1 Clericus, A. Clarke, McKnight, Whitby, make them distinct. See contra 
Michaelis, in Townsend, part v. note 37. 

2 For John’s order the great majority of harmonists; for that of Matthew and 
Mark: Bynaeus, Newcome, Da Costa, Wichelaus, Répe, McClellan; some put it on 
Wednesday evening, so Rob.; but see Riddle, Har., 237. 








Part VII.] SECOND ANOINTING OF JESUS. 427 


is brought in parenthetically.". Two days before the feast of the 
Passover, the chief priests and elders held a council at the 
palace of Caiaphas the high priest, and consult how they may 
kill Jesus. They dare not arrest Him openly and with violence, 
but will do it by subtlety; yet, even this they fear to do during 
the feast. The result of their consultation thus is, that the 
arrest be postponed till the feast is past, or, as some say, that 
it be made before the feast. But the Lord had declared, that 
after two days was the Passover, and then He should be betrayed 
to be crucified. Matthew and Mark, therefore, proceed to show 
how the Lord’s words were fulfilled through the treachery of 
Judas, and the priests and elders made to change their resolution. 
This apostate, coming to the priests, offers to betray Him into 
their hands, and will do it sosoon as an opportunity presents. 
Thus the matter is left between Judas and them, and they await 
his action. 

Turning now to the account of the supper, we ask why it is 
thus interposed between the consultation of the priests and the 
action of Judas? Plainly, that it may explain his action. He 
was offended that so much money should be wasted at the 
anointing of the Lord, and in his covetousness, as here revealed, 
we find the explanation of his subsequent treachery. But it is 
said that neither Matthew nor Mark makes any special mention 
of Judas at the supper, and, therefore, give no explanation of 
his treachery. They say only that certain of the disciples were 
displeased. It must be admitted that, had we not the narrative 
of John, it would not be obvious why they should mention this 
supper in this connection. There may be some reason unknown 
to us why they omit the name of Judas as the one chiefly 
offended. Yet, even with this omission, an impartial reader 
could hardly fail to infer that to the supper at Bethany we should 
trace the immediate origin of the treachery they relate. Some, 
however, think the supper to be mentioned here upon other 
grounds,” perhaps because of the anointing, of which McClellan 
speaks “as a memorable act of faith in the coming Passion.” 
There is nothing in the language of Matthew or Mark which 


1 Wieseler, Stier, Greswell, Lewin, Ellicott, and many. 
2 Ebrard, 474; Strong, Har., note 51. 


428 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


necessarily implies that this supper took place two days before 
the Passover, for the statement of the former (verse 14), “ Then 
Judas . . . went unto the chief priests,” does not connect 
the time of his visit with the supper, but with their council 
(verses 3-5). (So Keil.) All between verses 6-13 comes in 
parenthetically as an explanatory statement. But against this it 
is objected,’ that Judas would not have cherished a purpose of 
treachery four days in his heart without executing it. But the 
betrayal of his Lord was not a hasty, passionate act, done in a 
moment of excitement. It was done coolly, deliberately, and it 
is this which gave it its atrocious character. Greswell remarks 
(iii. 129) that “this history is divisible into three stages, each of 
which has been accurately defined: the first cause and concep- 
tion of his purpose; the overt step toward its execution; and 
lastly, its consummation. The consummation took place in the 
garden of Gethsemane; the overt step was the compact with the 
Sanhedrin; the first cause and conception of the purpose, if they 
are to be traced up to anything on record, must be referred to 
what happened at Bethany.” 

We give the following as the probable order of events: 
Jesus, leaving Jericho on the morning of Friday, reaches Beth- 
any in the afternoon, perhaps about sunset. He leaves the pil- 
grims with whom He has journeyed, and who go on to Jerusa- 
lem, and with His apostles stops till the Sabbath should be 
past; they being probably received by some of His friends, and 
He Himself doubtless finding a home in the dwelling of Laza- 
rus and his sisters. The next day, being the Sabbath, is spent at 
Bethany; and in the afternoon Simon the leper makes Him a 
supper, at which His disciples and Lazarus and his sisters were 
present. During the afternoon much people of the Jews, — 
‘the common people of the Jews,” (John xii. 9) R. V.,— who had 
heard through the pilgrims of His arrival, go out to see Him 
and Lazarus; from this desire to see Lazarus we may infer either 
that he had been with Jesus at Ephraim, or that those who went 
to see him were pilgrims; and many of them believe on Him. 
This, coming to the ears of the chief priests, leads to a consulta 
tion how Lazarus may be put to death with Jesus 


1 Robinson, Har., 210. 





‘5 
8 
5 
i 
4 


K 


== 


=> 


PRR SP RT 


BETHANY 


Mi 





oO 
ae 
ie 
id Bb 
eof 
ht 

oe, 
mh 
i A 
BRE 
= Om 
eeu 
= (gy 
roads 
io 

bw 
mi id 
a 
aoe 


5 


3. Rus: 
4. Por 
Por 


THE City, 


2. TRADITIONAL SPOT OF CHRIST'S WEEPING OVER 


a. CHURCH OF THE ASCENSION. 


i 
é 
\ 
r 
« 
yi 


* 
‘ 


2 ea yee 





Part VII.] ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM, 429 


SuNDAY, 2p ApriL, 10TH Nisan, 783. A. D. 30. 


Leaving Bethany, He sends to an unnamed village for Marr. xxi, 1-11, 
an ass upon which to ride, and sitting upon it He enters Marx xi. 1-10. 
Jerusalem amidst the shouts of His disciples and of the LuKE xix. 29-44. 
populace. As He looks upon the city from the Mount of JOHN xii. 12-19. 
Olives, He weeps over it. All the city is greatly moved, 
and the Pharisees desire Him to rebuke His disciples. He 
visits the temple; but, after looking around Him, leaves it Marx xi. 11. 
and goes out with the Twelve to Bethany, where He passes 
the night. 


The day following the supper at Bethany, the Lord sent two 
of His disciples to a village which is described as lying “ over 
against them;” where they would find an ass and her colt, and 
these they were to bring to Him. Some suppose that the own- 
ers, 1f not His disciples, were at least friendly, and learning for 
whose use the animals were desired, at once consented; others, 
without sufficient ground, suppose them to have been strangers, 
and infer a supernatural knowledge on the Lord’s part of the 
ownership of the animals. 

As this village is generally supposed to be Bethphage, and 
Bethphage lay upon the Mount of Olives, some notice of this 
mount is necessary. 


MOUNT OF OLIVES AND BETHPHAGE. 


Under the general term, Mount of Olives, is included the long 
ridge of chalky limestone east of Jerusalem, running north and south, 
and separated from the city by the valley of the Kidron. This ridge 
has three peaks or eminences: that to the north known as Mt. 
Scopus; that in the middle, the Mount of Olives distinctively so called ; 
that to the south, the Mount of Offence (Rob., i. 274). We are here con- 
cerned only with the middle one, which lies directly east of the temple. 
This is also divided into three points or tops: the northern, bearing 
the traditional name of Viri Galilei (Acts i. 12); the middle one, 
where is the Moslem village et Tor of some dozen houses, and the 
Church of the Ascension; and the southern, enclosed and in possession 
of the Roman Catholics, who have here two churches and a convent. 
With the northern one we are interested as the place where the 
Twelve are said to have stood when the Lord ascended, but it will be 
examined when the Ascension comes before us. 

The central eminence has two points, of which the eastern is the 
highest, some 2,664 feet above the Mediterranean, and about 200 feet 


430 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


above the temple. This point is owned by the Russians, who have here 
rebuilt an old church and some small convents, planted trees, ‘‘and 
above all erected a very high, square-shaped belfry, standing alone, 
with very many bells of various sizes, amongst which is one very 
large” (Qt. St., Oct., 1889). Another church after the Muscovite 
style has been built lower down on the west slope. 

The road from Jericho to Jerusalem through Bethany runs be- 
tween the Mount of Offence and the Mount of Olives, but there is 
another more direct running over the central summit. 

Bethphage. —There are two chief opinions respecting the position 
of Bethphage: 1. That it was a village distinct from Bethany, but 
adjacent to it, and the same mentioned by Matthew (xxi. 2), by Mark 
(xi. 2,) and by Luke (xix. 30); 2. That it was an ecclesiastical suburb 
of Jerusalem, rather a district than a village. 

1. It may be inferred from Mark (xi. 1): ‘‘ And when they came 
nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of 
Olives, He sendeth forth two of His disciples,” and from the like 
expression in Luke (xix. 29), that they were two distinct yet adjacent 
villages, and both upon the Mount of Olives, In Matthew (xxi. 1) 
Bethphage only is mentioned: ‘‘And when they drew nigh unto Jeru- 
salem, and were come unto Bethphage, unto the Mount of Olives, 
then sent, ff.” In John (xii. 1) mention is made of Bethany, but 
not of Bethphage. As the journey from Jericho to Jerusalem was 
from northeast to southwest, it is supposed that Bethphage was first 
reached, and therefore was east or northeast of Bethany, and more 
remote from the city. (So Winer, Rob., Meyer, Tristram.) Others, 
however, maintain that the Evangelists in their narratives take 
Jerusalem as the centre, and mention Bethphage first because first 


reached by one going eastward to Jericho, and so nearer the city 


than Bethany. (So Licht., Ellicott, Farrar, Lange.) Another reason 
for this order is given by Greswell (iii. 75): ‘‘ Bethphage lay upon 
the direct line of this route, but Bethany did not, so that one travel- 
ling from Jericho would come to Bethphage first, and would have to 
turn off from the road to go to Bethany.” 

But before we can define the relative positions of the two places, 
we must examine their supposed sites; several have been suggested. 

Barclay (65) finds a site which he thinks answers all demands of 
the narrative, a little south of the road from Jericho to Jerusalem. 
It is upon “a spur of Olivet distant rather more than a mile from the 
city, situated between two deep valleys, on which are tanks, founda- 
tions, and other indubitable evidences of the former existence of a 
village.” Porter (Hand-Book) refers to a site upon the projecting 
point of a ridge, ‘‘and marked by scarped rocks, cisterns, and old 








Part VII.] BETHPHAGE AND BETHANY. 431 


stones.” In the twelfth century Bethphage was placed by tradition 
between Bethany and the Mount of Olives, and no other traditional 
site was known. Modern explorations give us little knowledge. In 
1879 the ruins of a medieval church were discovered on the ridge 
joining the Mount of Olives to the hill above Bethany, in which was 
found a slab of stone having on it paintings and inscriptions (See 
Pict. Pal., 83; Twenty-one Years’ Work, 177.) This is ascribed to the 
twelfth century, but gives no help as to the true site of Bethphage; 
it shows only the tradition of that time. 

2. That Bethphage was counted as an ecclesiastical suburb of 
Jerusalem, and was on the western slope of the Mount. This is 
often said by the Talmudists, some of whom speak as if it were 
locally within the city walls; but their meaning seems to be, that 
lying outside the walls but contiguous to them, it was reckoned 
as holy as the city itself. The reason of this is found in the 
fact that at the great feasts too many were present to be able to 
find lodging in the city, and hence it was necessary to enlarge it 
by sanctifying some space without the walls. The western slope 
of the Mount of Olives, and perhaps also its summit, were so sanc- 
tified and regarded as holy. Lightfoot (Vol. X., Chronograph. 
Cent., 76) quotes several writers to show that a sentence of the San- 
hedrin pronounced at Bethphage was valid; that the Passover might 
be eaten there, and the shewbread be baked there. He thinks 
that Bethphage was ‘‘a tract without the walls, but regarded 
as holy as if in the city itself’; and that the outermost street 
of the city but within the walls, was called by the same name. 
Edersheim (ii. 364) observes that Bethphage is sometimes spoken of 
as distinct from Jerusalem, while at others it is described as, for 
ecclesiastical purposes, part of the city itself. Neubauer (147) to 
reconcile the Talmudists, supposes it to have been near to Jerusalem, 
but not init. Thus, when many were present at the feasts, and the 
city was not able to hold them, Bethphage was included in the holy 
limits, and the offerings of those in it were accepted (Hamburger, 
ii. 109; Sepp, v. 421). 

But how far from city walls eastward did this suburb extend? 
Lightfoot says, 2,000 cubits, or a Sabbath day’s journey; and that cer- 
tain marks were set that its bounds might be known. The point on the 
Mount of Olives where Bethany and Bethphage touched on each other, 
was at this distance; and the place where the ass was tied may have 
been where one of these marks was set up (Luke xix. 29-30). To 
the same effect Conder says (H. B., 326): ‘‘It appears clear from 
a@ number of passages in the Talmud that Bethphage marked the 
Sappatical line east of Jerusalem. The limit called ‘the wall of 


432 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


Rethphage’ is about two thousand feet east of the east wall of 
Jerusalem” (Caspari, 190). Assuming these statements to be well 
founded, Bethphage was the name given to a district extending a 
Sabbath day’s journey east of the city up the slopes of Olivet, and 
regarded as holy. 

We must now further ask, Was there also a village called Beth- 
phage? This is denied by Lightfoot: ‘‘ There was no town at all 
named Bethphage.” (II. Har., 131; so Godet, Caspari.) Others 
hold that there was a village, but that it later fell into decay, and its 
site is unknown. But most commentators take Bethpage to be the 
village mentioned by the Lord (Matt. xxi. 2): ‘‘ Go into the village over 
against you, and ye shall find an ass tied.” (Meyer, Ellicott, Keil; 
Weiss thinks that the village was Bethany; Ebrard, neither Bethany 
nor Bethphage, but a third and unknown village. Schick, Qt. St., 
Oct., 1889, thinks this village to be that where the Bethphage stone 
was tound. See Jerusalem Survey, p. 331 ff.) 

On the other hand, Caspari, who makes Bethphage a district em- 
bracing the whole of the Mount of Olives, and denies any village 
of the name, thinks Bethany to be the particular spot within 
Bethphage to which Jesus came. It is said by Godet: ‘‘ He came to 
Bethphage, the sacred district; and to Bethany, the hamlet where this 
district began.” But we may rather say, with Lightfoot, that they 
were two distinct districts or townships; and that when it is said 
(Acts i. 12) that ‘‘the Lord led His disciples out to Bethany, a Sab- 
bath day’s journey,” this ‘‘ brought them to the tract of Olivet where 
the name of Bethphage ceased and that of Bethany began; and here 
He ascended.” The language of Luke: ‘‘ When He was come nigh 
to Bethphage and Bethany,” implies that He was on the border line 
of the two. (Thus in substance Williams, Holy City, ii. 443.) This 
does not forbid the existence of two villages or hamlets, one, Beth- 
phage, giving its name to the western, the other, Bethany, to the 
eastern slope of the mount. (See McClellan, 589; Winer, i. 174.) 

We may, then, believe that the Lord had reached the point where 
the two districts, Bethany and Bethphage, joined, when He sent the 
two disciples for the colt. Whether the village to which He sent 
them was called Bethphage, and, if so, where this village stood, are 
questions which our present knowledge does not enable us to answer. 

Without, then, attempting to define the exact position of Beth- 
phage, we may thus arrange the circumstances connected with the 
Lord’s departure from Bethany: Leaving this village on foot, attended 
by His disciples and others, He comes to the place where a neighbor- 
ing village, probably Bethphage, is in view over against them, per- 
haps separated from them by a valley. At this point He arrests His 








——_- we  % 


Part VII] TRIUMPHAL ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM. 433 


march, and sends two of His disciples to find and bring to Him an 
ass tied and her colt with her. When her owners demanded of them 
why they took the ass, they had only to say that the Lord had need 
of it, and the sight of Jesus with the attendant crowds would at once 
explain why He needed it. It is not, therefore, necessary to suppose 
that the owners were His disciples, much less that any previous 
arrangement had been made with them. The animals being 
brought to Him, He is seated upon the colt, and amidst the acclama- 
tions of the multitude, ascends to the top of the Mount. 

As both the ass and her colt were brought, it has been questioned 
upon which the Lord rode. But Mark and Luke are express that it 
was the colt.‘ The multitude that accompanied the Lord was com- 
posed, in part, of those going up’ to the city from the neighborhood, 
and of the pilgrims from Galilee and Perza on their way thither; and 
in part, of those who, hearing of His coming, had gone out from the 
city to meet Him (John xii. 12, 13). It is probable that most of the 
latter were pilgrims, not inhabitants of the city, and are spoken of 
by John as ‘‘ people that were come to the feast.” The priests and 
scribes and Pharisees stood as angry or contemptuous spectators, and 
not only refused to join in the rejoicings and hosannas, but bade Him 
rebuke His disciples, and command them to be silent (Luke xix. 39). 

The road by which the Lord passed over Olivet was probably the 
southern or main road which passes between the summit which con- 
tains the Tombs of the Prophets, and that called the Mount of 
Offence. This was the usual road for horsemen and caravans; a steep 
footpath leads over the central peak, and a winding road over the 
northern shoulder, neither of which could He have taken. Stanley 
(187) thus describes the procession: ‘‘Two vast streams of people 
met on that day. The one poured out from the city, and, as they 
came through the gardens whose clusters of palm rose on the south- 
eastern corner of Olivet, they cut down the long branches, as was 
their wont at the Feast of Tabernacles, and moved upward toward 
Bethany with loud shouts of welcome. From Bethany streamed forth 
the crowds who had assembled there the previous night. The road soon 
loses sight of Bethany. . . . The two streams met midway. 
Half of the vast mass turning round, preceded, the other half followed. 
Gradually the long procession swept up over the ridge where first 
begins ‘the descent of the Mount of Olives’ toward Jerusalem. At 
this point the first view is caught of the southeastern corner of the 
city. The temple and the more northern portions are hid by the 
slope of Olivet on the right; what is seen is only Mount Zion. . . 


1 Ebrard, 480; Meyer, in loco. 


434 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VII. 


It was.at this precise point, ‘as He drew near at the descent of the 
Mount of Olives,’ (may it not have been from the sight thus opening 
upon them?) that the shout of triumph burst forth from the multi- 
tude: ‘ Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is He that cometh in 
the name of the Lord!’ Again the procession advanced. The road 
descends a slight declivity and the glimpse of the city is again with- 
drawn behind the intervening ridge of Olivet. A few moments, and 
the path mounts again; it climbs a rugged ascent; it reaches a ledge 
of smooth rock, and in an instant the whole city bursts into view. It 
is hardly possible to doubt that this rise and turn of the road, this 
rocky ledge, was the exact point where the multitude paused again; 
and ‘He, when He beheld the city,’ wept over it.””? 

Tradition makes the Lord to have crossed the summit of the 
Mount of Olives, and puts the spot where He wept over the city about 
half-way down on its western slope.” 

Placing the Lord’s arrival at Bethany on Friday, the supper and 
anointing on Saturday, His solemn entry into the city took place on 
Sunday.* As to the hour of the entry nothing is said, but from Mark 
xi. 11 it appears that it was late in the afternoon when He entered the 
temple; and, as no events intermediate are mentioned, the entry into 
the temple seems to have been soon after the entry into the city. It 
was, then, probably near the middle of the day when He left Beth- 
any. lLuthardt, who puts the supper on Sunday, makes the entry to 
have been still later upon the same day; but this would have brought 
it to the verge of evening. Greswell puts His departure from Beth- 
any about the ninth hour, or 3 p. m.; His arrival in the temple before 
the eleventh; His departure before sunset. 

This entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, ‘‘ the city of the great king,” 
was a formal assertion of His Messianic claims. It was the last 
appeal to the Jews to discern and recognize His royal character. He 
came as a king, and permitted His disciples and the multitudes to 
pay Him kingly honors. He received, as rightly belonging to Him, 
the acclamations, ‘‘ Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is He 
that cometh in the name of the Lord;” ‘‘ Blessed be the kingdom 
of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord;” 
“Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in 
heaven, and glory in the highest;” ‘‘ Hosanna! Blessed is the King 
of Israel, that cometh in the name of the Lord.” He was the Son of 
David, the King of Israel, coming in the name of the Lord. But, 


1 This point is about 100 feet higher than the valley of the Kidron near St. Ste 
phen’s gate. 

2 See Van der Velde’s Mup of Jerusalem ; Ellicott, 288, note 1. 

® So Lichtenstein, Robinson, Wieseler, Gardiner, Fried.ieb, Wichelhaus, Meyer. 





Part VIL] JESUS RETURNS TO BETHANY. 435 


although this triumphal entry excited general attention — ‘‘all the 
city was moved ” (Matthew xxi. 10),— yet it is plain from the question 
put by the citizens, ‘‘ Who is this?” that, as a body, they had taken 
little part in the matter. ‘‘And the multitude said, This is Jesus, 
the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee” (verse 11). This multitude, thus 
distinguished from the citizens, consisted doubtless of those who had 
escorted Him from Bethany, and who were mostly Galilzans; and their 
answer, as remarked by Meyer, seems to show a kind of local pride 
in Him as from Galilee, their own prophet. But this very answer 
was peculiarly adapted to set the people of Judea against Him. (See 
John vii. 52.) 

The visit to the temple, for this was- the goal to which the 
procession directed its march,’ and its purification, are put by 
Matthew (xxi. 12) as if immediately following the entry; but Mark 
states that He merely entered the temple, and, looking around Him, 
went out because the even had come, and returned to Bethany with 
the Twelve. Luke (xix. 45) gives us no mark of time. The state- 
ment of Mark is so precise, that we cannot hesitate to give it the pref- 
erence.” Some suppose the Lord to have twice purified the temple; 
on the day of His entry, and again the next day.* Others, that He 
began it on one day and finished it on the next, cleansing first the 
inner and then the outer court. Patritius makes Him to have healed 
_ the blind and lame, to have answered the priests and scribes (Matt. 
xxi. 14-16), and to have heard the request of the Greeks (John xii. 20- 
22), on this first entry. Alford’s supposition,‘ that Mark relates the 
triumphal entry a day too soon, that Jesus, in fact, first entered the 
city privately, noticed the abuses in the temple, and returning to 
Bethany, the next day made His triumphal entry, has no good basis. 
A private entry before the public one conflicts with the whole tenor 
of the narrative. 

After looking about the temple (‘‘round about upon all things,” 
Mark), as if He would observe whether all was done according to His 
Father’s will, He goes out, and returns to Bethany. Greswell (iii. 
100) remarks: ‘‘It is probable that the traders, with their droves of 
cattle and their other effects, had already removed them for the day.” 
But if so, He saw by plain marks that His Father’s house was still 
made a house of merchandise. There can be little doubt that He 


1 See Mark xi. 11; R. V.: ‘‘ He entered into Jerusalem, into the temple.” 

2 Wieseler, Lange, Alexander, Robinson, Tischendorf, Gardiner, Meyer, Ellicott, 
McClel.. Eders. For the order of Matthew. Farrar, Weitbrecht. 

3 Lightfoot, Townsend; Greswell, iii. 99. Pound, once on Friday and again on 
Sunday; so apparently Neander. 

# Note on Matt. xxi. 1. 


436 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


spent the nights during Passion week in Bethany, and probably in 
the house of Lazarus. Matthew says (xxi. 17): ‘‘ He went out of the 
city into Bethany, and He lodged there.” Luke, speaking in general 
terms, says (xxi. 37): ‘‘ And in the day-time He was teaching in the 
temple, and at night He went out and abode (lodged) in the mount 
that is called the Mount of Olives.” Probably Bethany is here meant 
as a district embracing a part of the mount, for He could not well, at 
this season of the year, without a tent, lodge in the open air. 
Alexander supposes that Luke would suggest that ‘‘a part of these 
nights was employed in prayer amidst the solitudes of Olivet.” 
Some would put the request of the Greeks to see Jesus, and His 
answer to them (John xii. 20-36) upon this day; but it may better 
be referred to Tuesday, upon grounds to be there given. 

Many would bring this visit of Jesus to the temple on the 10th 
Nisan into connection with the divine command to choose this day a 
lamb for the paschal sacrifice and supper (Ex. xii. 38-6), and thus find 
in it a mystical significance. He was the true Paschal Lamb, and 
was now set apart for the sacrifice.* 


Monpay, 3p ApriL, 11TH Nisan, 788. A.D. 30. 


Jesus, leaving Bethany early with His disciples,is MATT. xxi. 18, 19. 
hungry, and beholding a fig tree by the way whichhas Mark xi. 12-14. 
no fruit, He pronounces a curse against it. Proceed- 
ing to the city, He enters the temple and purifies it. Marv, xxi. 12-17. 
He heals there the blind and lame, and the children Mark xi. 15-19. 
ery, ‘‘ Hosanna to the Son of David.’’ His reproofs LUKE xix, 45-48, 
enrage the priests and scribes, who seek how to de- 
stroy Him. Inthe evening He departs, and returns to 
Bethany. 


Both Matthew and Mark relate that the Lord was hungry as He 
returned into the city; but upon what ground He had abstained from 
food that morning does not appear. It could not well have been 
from the early hour of His departure from Bethany, but was probably 
a self-imposed fast. It has been inferred from this circumstance that 
He could not have spent the night with His friends. It may have 
been spent in solitude and prayer. 

Into an examination of the supposed moral difficulties connected 
with the cursing of the fig tree, we cannot here enter.” It is plain 
that this miracle was wrought because of its symbolic teachings. The 
fig tree was the type of the Jewish people (Luke xiii. 6-9). They 


1 Whitby, Greswell, Alford, Wieseler, 
2 See Trench, Miracles, p. 346, 


ee 


Part VII.] SECOND PURIFICATION OF THE TEMPLE. 437 


had the law, the temple, all rites of worship, the externals of 
righteousness; but bore none of its true fruits. Christ found nothing 
but leaves. Some think the tree to have been unhealthy, and there- 
fore a better symbol of the nation. It issaid by Neander: ‘‘A sound 
tree, suddenly destroyed, would certainly be no fitting type of the 
Jewish people.” 

Matthew relates the withering of the fig tree as if it took place, 
not only on the same day on which it was cursed, but within a few 
moments (verses 19, 20). Mark, on the other hand, speaks as if the 
withering was not seen by the disciples till the next day (xi. 20). 
Greswell, who supposes that the malediction instantly took effect, and 
that the tree began at once to wither, would make Matthew and 
Mark refer to two distinct conversations between the Lord and the 
disciples, — one that day, and the other uponthe next. More probably, 
Matthew brings together all that occurred upon both days, in order 
to complete his narrative.’ 

That this purification of the temple is distinct from that at the 
beginning of His ministry (John ii. 13-17) has been already shown. 
That the latter was passed over by the Synoptists, is explained from 
the fact that they begin their account of Jesus’ ministry with His 
departure to Galilee after John the Baptist’s imprisonment. That 
John should omit the last, is wholly in keeping with the character 
of his Gospel.? The first cleansing and rebuke had wrought no 
permanent results, and the old abuses were restored in full vigor. 

After cleansing the temple, or that part of the court of the 
Gentiles called ‘‘the shops,” where every day was sold wine, 
salt, oil, as also oxen and sheep,* He permits the blind and lame, 
probably those who asked alms at the gates, to come to Him, and 
He healed them. These are the only cases of healing recorded as 
wrought by the Lord in the temple. These healings, and the expres- 
sions of wonder and gratitude which they called forth, joined to the 
remembrance of the acclamations that had greeted Him the day 
before, led the children in the temple, who may have been members 
of the choir of singers employed in the temple service,‘ to cry, 
‘‘Hosanna to the Son of David,” greatly to the displeasure of the 
priests and scribes. It is remarkable that children only are men- 
tioned, and may indicate that already the multitude, overawed by the 
firm and hostile bearing of His enemies, had begun to waver, and 
dared no more openly express their good-will. (See, however, 
Mark xi. 18.) 

1 So Alford, Trench, Krafft, Wieseler. 
2 See Edersheim, ii. 389, note. 


3 See Lightfoot, on Matt. xxi. 12. 
4 Lightfoot, The Temple Service, p. 56; Sepp, v. 439. 


438 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL. 


Some, from the fact that the children are here mentioned as cry- 
ing Hosanna, and that in the temple, make it to have been on the day of 
the Lord’s entry.’ But there is no difficulty in believing that the 
children might now re-echo what they had heard the day before.? 


TuespAy, 4TH ApriL, 12TH Nisan, 783. A. D. 30. 


Returning into the city in the morning with His dis- Mark xi. 20-26. 
ciples, they see the fig tree dried up from the roots, and Marr. xxi. 20-22. 
this leads Jesus to speak to them respecting faith. As 
He enters the temple, the Pharisees ask Him by what Matt, xxi. 23-46. 
authority He acts. He replies by a question respecting MARK xi. 27-33. 
the baptism of John, and adds the parables of the two LuKe xx. 1-19. 
sons and of the wicked husbandmen. The Pharisees MARK xii. 1-12. 
wish to arrest Him, but are afraid of the people. He Marv. xxii. 1-14. 
speaks the parable of the king’s son. The Pharisees Marv. xxii. 15-46. 
and Herodians propose to Him the question concern- Mark xii. 13-40. 
ing the lawfulness of tribute to Cesar. The Sadducees LUKE xx. 20-47, 
question Him respecting the resurrection of the dead; 
and a lawyer, Which is the chief commandment in the 
law? He asks the Pharisees a question respecting the Marv. xxiii. 
Messiah, and puts them to silence, and addressing the 
disciples and people denounces their hypocrisy. 

After this He watches the people casting in their Marx xii. 41-44. 
gifts, and praises the poor widow who casts in two LuKE xxi. 1-4. 
mites. Some Greeks desiring to see Him, He prophe- JoOxN xii. 20-50. 
sies of His death. A voice is heard from heaven. He 
speaks a few words to the people and leaves the tem- 
ple. As He goes out, the disciples point out to Himthe Mark xiii. 
size and splendor of the buildings, to whom He replies LUKE xxi. 5-36. 
that all shall be thrown down. Ascending the Mount Marv. xxiv., xxv. 
of Olives He seats Himself, and explains to Peter, James, 

John, and Andrew, the course of events till His return. Matt. xxvi. 1-5. 
He adds, that after two days was the Passover, whenHe Mark xiv. l, 2. 
should be betrayed. He goes to Bethany, and the same Marv. xxvi. 14-16 
evening His enemies hold a council and agree with Mark xiv. 10, 11. 
Judas respecting His betrayal. LUEE xxii. 1-6. 


The withering of the fig tree seems to have begun as soon as 
the Lord had spoken the curse against it. Matthew says, 
“presently the fig tree withered away.” Mark says, “it was 
dried up from the roots.” In twenty-four hours it was com- 
pletely dead. That the disciples did not, at evening upon their 
return to Bethany, see that it had withered, may be owing to 
the late hour of their return, or that they did not pass by it. 


1 Alford, Newcome, Robinson. 
2 Krafft, Wieseler, Lichtenstein, Ellicott. 


Part VII.] LAST TEACHING IN THE TEMPLE. 439 


The people assembling at an early hour in the temple, Jesus 
went thither immediately upon His arrival in the city, and began 
to teach. Very soon the chief priests and elders of the people, 
and the scribes, came to Him, demanding by what authority He 
acted. It seems a question formally put to Him, and probably 
by a deputation from the Sanhedrin.’ It differs essentially from 
the question put to Him after the first purification (John ii. 18): 
“What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing thou doest these 
things?” Now it is: “By what authority doest thou these 
things ? And who gave thee this authority?” Then, they de- 
sired that He should work miracles as signs or proofs of His 
divine mission. But His miracles had not been sufficient to 
convince them. Now, he must give other vouchers. He must 
show himself to be authorized by those who, sitting in Moses’ 
seat, could alone confer authority. But they had not author- 
ized Him, and He was therefore acting in an arbitrary and ille- 
gal manner. To this question He replies by another respecting 
the baptism of John. The Baptist had borne his testimony to 
Him when, three years before, they had sent a deputation 
to him (John i. 26). If John was a prophet, and divinely com- 
missioned, why had they not received his testimony? This was 
a dilemma they could not escape. They could not condemn 
themselves; they dared not offend the people; they must remain 
silent. 

Although thus repulsed, His enemies did not leave the tem- 
ple, and He began to speak to them in parables (Mark xii. 1); 
“the second beginning,” says Stier, ‘‘as before in Galilee, so 
now in Jerusalem.” It is to be noted that now, for the first 
time, the Lord uttered plainly the truth in the hearing of the 
Pharisees, that they would kill Him, and that in consequence the 
kingdom would be taken from them.*? The point of these 
parables was not missed by the Pharisees, but they dared not 
arrest Him. 

The parable of the marriage of the king’s son is related by 
Matthew only, for that in Luke (xiv. 16-24) was spoken much 


1 So Alexander, Meyer, Keil; Edersheim (ii. 381) thinks there could not have been 
any formal meeting of the Sanhedrin, but only an informal gathering of the authorities. 
3 See Matt. viii. 11,12. These words seem to have been spoken to the disciples. 


440 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


earlier." It set forth more distinctly than the parables pre- 
ceding, the rejection of the Jews, —those bidden of old; the 
bidding of others in their place; and the destruction of their city. 

Stung by these parables, so full of sharp rebuke, the Phari- 
sees now consulted together how “they might entangle Him in His 
talk,” and they sent out to Him certain of their number, and of 
the Herodians. There is by no means agreement as to the position 
of these Herodians, or why they are now acting with the Pharisees. 
They are generally regarded as partizans of the Herods (Josephus, 
Antiq., xv. 15.9). Edersheim (ii. 384) thinks them a party which 
“honestly accepted the house of Herod as occupants of the Jew- 
ish throne”; Greswell (iii. 111), as “holding covertly the princi- 
ples of Judas of Galilee,” or, in other words, as secret nationalists, 
Lutteroth, in loco, thinks them so called simply because subjects 
of one of the Herods, and thus to distinguish them from the 
Jews under Roman rule. Never were Pharisaic craft and in- 
veterate hostility more strikingly shown than in these attempts 
to draw something from His own mouth which might serve as 
the basis of accusation against Him. The first question would 
have been full of peril to one less wise than Himself, for 
it appealed to the most lively political susceptibilities of the peo- 
ple. No zealous Jew could admit that tribute was rightly due 
to Cesar, and much less could one who claimed to be the Messiah 
admit this; for it was to confess that He was the vassal of the 
Romans, a confession utterly incompatible with Messianic claims. 
Yet if He denied this, the Herodians were at hand to accuse 
him of treason, an accusation which the Romans were always 
quick to hear. But He avoided the artfully contrived snare 
by referring the question to their own discernment. God had 
chosen them for His people, and He alone should be their king, 
and therefore it was not right for them to be under heathen 
domination. Yet, because of their sins, God had given them 
into the hands of their enemies, and they were now under 
Roman rule. This fact they must recognize, and in view of this 
they must fulfil all duties, those to Casar as well as those to 
God. 

The question of the Sadducees was in keeping with the 


1 Meyer, Alford, Robinson, Tischendorf, Lichtenstein, Trench. 





Part VIL] PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES TEMPT HIM. 441 


skeptical, scoffing character of that sect. Apparently, it was not 
so much designed to awake popular hatred against Him as to 
cast ridicule upon Him, and also upon their rivals, the Pharisees, 
by showing the absurd, consequences of one of the most 
cherished pharisaic dogmas, the resurrection of the dead. Per- 
haps, also, they were curious to see how He would meet an 
argument to which their rivals had been able to give no 
satisfactory answer.’ 

The question of the lawyer seems to have been without any 
malicious motive on his part.’ It referred to a disputed point 
among the schools of the Rabbis, one which he, admiring the 
wisdom of Jesus, wished to hear solved. Some, however, sup- 
pose (see Matt. xxii. 34) that the lawyer was sent by the Phari- 
sees who had gathered together to devise a new attack. But 
these two views are not really inconsistent. The lawyer, a man 
of ability and reputation, and on these grounds chosen to be 
their representative and spokesman, may have had a sincere re- 
spect for the wisdom that had marked Christ’s previous answers; 
and proposed this question respecting the comparative value of 
the commandments rather to test His knowledge in the law than 
to array the people against him. Had the answer been errone- 
ous, doubtless advantage would have been taken of it to His 
injury, although it is not obvious to us in what way; but it so 
commended itself to the intelligence of the lawyer, that he hon- 
estly and frankly expressed his approbation. (See Mark xii. 32- 
34.) 

All his adversaries being silenced, the Lord proceeds in His 
turn to ask a question that should test their own knowledge, 
and inquires how the Messiah could be the Son of David, and 
yet David call Him Lord? Their inability to answer Him 
shows us how little the truth that the Messiah should be a 
divine being, the Son of God as well as Son of Man, was yet 
apprehended by them; and how all Christ’s efforts to reveal His 
true nature had failed through their wickedness and unbelief. 

It is questioned whether the Lord’s words spoken of the 
seribes (Mark xii. 38-40; Luke xx. 45-47) are to be distinguished 
from those recorded by Matthew xxiii. Greswell (iii. 121) gives 





1 See Meyer, in loco. 2 Greswell, Alford. 
8 Meyer, Ebrard. 


A42 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


ten reasons for distinguishing between them, which, however, 
have no great weight. Most regard them as identical.' Wiese- 
ler (395) and Godet suppose Matthew to have included the 
address to the Pharisees recorded by Luke (xi. 39-52). We 
can scarce doubt that the Lord’s address (Matt. xxiii.) was 
spoken as given by that Evangelist. Some parts of it are found 
in Luke, but, as said by Meyer, “The entire discourse has so 
much the character of a living whole, that although much that 
was spoken on other occasions may, perhaps, be mixed up with 
it, it is scarcely possible to disjoin such passages from those that 
are essentially original.” (Verse 14 is put in R. V. in the mar- 
gin.) The attempts of the Pharisees to entrap Him, their malice 
and wickedness veiled under the show of righteousness, awakened 
the Lord’s deepest indignation, and explain the terrible sever- 
ity of His language They had proved that “they were the 
children of them which killed the prophets,” and as the old mes- 
sengers of God had been rejected and slain, so would they re- 
ject and slay those whom He wasabout tosend. Thus should all 
the righteous blood shed upon the earth come upon them. 

It is not certain who was the “ Zacharias, son of Barachias,”’ 
to whom the Lord refers as slain between the temple and the 
altar. Many identify him with the Zechariah son of Jehoiada, 
who was “stoned with stones at the commandment of the king 
in the court of the house of the Lord” (2 Chron. xxiv. 20, 21). 
In this case Barachias may have been another name of Jehoiada, 
as the Jews had often two names; or Barachias may have been 
the father and Jehoiada the grandfather; or, as it is omitted by 
Luke xi. 51, some, as Meyer, infer that it was not mentioned by 
Christ, but was added from tradition, and erroneously given, 
perhaps confounding him with the Zechariah son of Berechiah 
(Zech. i. 1). But if this Zacharias was meant, why is he called 
the last of the martyrs, since there were others later? The ex- 
planation given by Lightfoot is at least probable, that it was the 
last example in the Old Testament as the canon is arranged in 
the Hebrew, the books of Chronicles being at the end; and there- 
fore the Lord cites the first, that of Abel, and this as the last. 
Both have also another circumstance in common —a call of the 


1 Ebrard, Meyer, Alford, Robinson, Krafft. 





) 
. 
: 


a 


Part VII.] STERN REBUKES OF THE PHARISEES. 443 


murdered for vengeance. Thus Lightfoot says: “The requiring 
of vengeance is mentioned only concerning Abel and Zacharias. 
‘Behold, the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me’ (Gen. 
iv. 10). ‘Let the Lord look upon it, and require it’” (2 Chron. 
xxiv. 22). Lutteroth, a loco, thinks Zacharias to have been one 
of “the many priests” mentioned by Josephus (War, i. 7. 5), who 
were slain by Pompey’s soldiers while carrying on services at 
the altar, and whose name was known to the Jews. Others 
make this Zacharias to be prophetically spoken of, and iden- 
tify him with the Zacharias, son of Baruch, mentioned by 
Josephus,* who was slain by the Zealots in the midst of the 
temple, and the body cast into the valley of the Kidron. But 
the Lord does not speak of blood to be yet shed, but of that 
which had been shed ; and as the death of Abel was a well- 
known historical event, so also was that of Zacharias. Oth- 
ers refer to a tradition that Zacharias, father of John the 
Baptist, was murdered by the Jews.° 

Many make this discourse to the Pharisees to have been 
spoken just before He left the temple, and His last words 
there. “It is morally certain,” says Greswell, “that our Lord 
immediately left the temple and never returned to it again.” 
But most follow the order of Mark (xii. 41-44), who places the 
visit of Jesus to the treasury after this discourse.‘ Seating Him- 
self by the treasury or treasure chests in the court of the women 
in which offerings were placed, He watches those who come to 
bring their gifts; and commendeth the gift of the poor widow. 

The visit of the Greeks to Him, who are generally regarded as 
proselytes of the gate, who had come to Jerusalem to worship, 
is mentioned only by John (xii. 20-36). From whence they 
came, we do not know. Some suppose them to have lived in 
one of the cities of the Decapolis, and find here the reason why 
they should have presented their request through Philip of Beth- 
saida. (Sepp, v. 447, thinks them deputies of Abgarus king of 
Edessa; see Westcott, in loco). The occasion of their desire to 


1 So Meyer, Alford, Eders., Lange ; see Winer, ii. 711. 2 War, iv. 5. 4. 

8 Thilo, Codex Apoc., i. 267; Hofmann, Leben Jesu, 184; Jones on the Canon of 
the New Testament, ii. 134. According to the latter, this tradition was very generally 
credited in early times, as by Tertullian, Origen, Epiphanius. See also Baronius, wha 
defends it. 

* Krafft, Friedlieb, Robinson, Wieseler. Ellicott, Tischendorf. 


444 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


see the Lord some have found in the words which they had 
heard, that the kingdom of God should be taken from the Jews 
and given to others. The time of their visit is not clear. 
Some place it upon the evening of the triumphal entry.’ But 
the Lord’s language fits better to the final departure from the 
temple than to the time of the entry. Beside, if He was now 
in the court of the women, it explains the request of the Greeks 
to see Him, for if He had been in the outer court, all could 
have seen Him, but into the inner court they could not come. 
Upon these and other grounds it is placed here by many.? It is 
not certain whether these Greeks did actually meet the Lord. 
His words (verses 23-27) were not addressed directly to them, 
but they may have been within hearing. Their coming is a 
sign that His end is nigh, and that the great work for which 
He came into the world is about to be fulfilled. Stier sets this 
visit of the Greeks from the west in contrast to the visit of the 
Magi from the east; the one at the end, the other at the beginning 
of His life. 

- In reply to the Lord’s prayer — “ Glorify Thy name” (verse 
28) — there ‘‘came a voice from heaven, I have both glorified it 
and will glorify it again.” These words, according to most 
interpreters, were spoken in an audible voice. It is said by 
Alford: “This voice can no otherwise be understood than as a 
plain articulate sound, miraculously spoken, heard by all and 
variously interpreted.” This would imply that all present heard 
the words plainly articulated. But this isnot said. They heard 
a voice, yet some said, “It thundered,” and others, “ An angel 
spake to Him,” which could not have been the case if the words 
had been distinctly spoken. Probably, the capacity to under- 
stand the voice was dependent upon each man’s spiritual con- 
dition and receptivity. To Jesus, and perhaps to the apostles 
and disciples, it was an articulate voice; to others, it was 
indistinct, yet they recognized it as a voice, perhaps of an angel; 
to others still, it was mere sound as if it thundered. Townsend 
would make it an answer to the Greeks who desired to see 
Jesus, or, at least, spoken in their hearing. We find, however, 


1 Greswell, Krafft, Ebrard, Townsend, Stier. 
2 Robinson, Lichtenstein, Tischendorf, Wieseler, Ellicott, Gardiner. 
3 See Luthardt, in doco. 





Part VIL} THE VOICE FROM HEAVEN. 445 


its true significance if we compare it with those other testimonies 
of the Father to Him at His baptism and at His transfiguration 
(Matt. iii. 17; xvii. 5). 

After Jesus had finished His words in the temple, He “ de- 
parted, and did hide Himself from them” (verse 36). This was, 
according to our order, on Tuesday evening, but others, as Godet, 
put it on Wednesday evening. His departing and hiding are 
not to be understood of a night’s sojourn in Bethany, but of His 
final departure from the temple, and His sojourn in retirement 
till His arrest. His public work is over. He appears no more 
in His Father’s house as a preacher of righteousness. Hence- 
forth all His words of wisdom are addressed to His own disci- 
ples. The statements in verses 37-43 are those of the Evangel- 
ist. But when were the Lord’s words (verses 44—50) spoken? 
Most regard them as a citation by the Evangelist from earlier 
discourses, and introduced here as confirming his own remarks.’ 
“The words were spoken by Jesus; the selection is made by 
John” (M. and M.); but according to others, they were spoken 
by the Lord at this time. 

The allusion of the disciples to the size and splendor of the 
temple buildings seems to have been occasioned by His words 
to the Pharisees foretelling its desolation (Matt. xxiii. 38). That 
so substantial and massive a structure could become desolate 
was incredible to them, for they had as yet no distinct conception 
that God was about to cast off His own covenant people, and 
bring the worship He had appointed to an end. This manifest- 
ation of incredulity led Him to say with great emphasis, that 
the buildings should be utterly destroyed, not one stone being 
left upon another. This was literally fulfilled in the destruction 
of the temple, though some of the foundation Ree were not 
wholly cast down. 

It was probably at the close of the day, whether before or 
after sunset we cannot tell, that He sat down on the Mount of 
Olives over against the temple. The city lay in full view before 
Him. Mark (xiii. 3) speaks of only four of the apostles — 
Peter and James and John and Andrew, who asked Him 


1 So Lichtenstein, Meyer, Alford, Tholuck, Tischendorf, Godet; Luthardt and 
Wieseler make them to have been spoken to the disciples. 


446 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD, [Part VIL 


privately when these things should be. Matthew (xxiv. 3) states 
that “the disciples came unto Him privately”; Luke (xxi. 7), 
that “they asked Him.” There can be little doubt that Mark 
gives the more accurate account, and that these four only were 
present." The remainder of the Twelve may have preceded 
Him on the way to Bethany. Alexander supposes that all were 
present, and that “the four are only mentioned as particularly 
earnest in making this inquiry, although speaking with and for 
the rest;” Ellicott takes the same view. 

If His words were spoken to these four only, it implies that 
the predictions He uttered could not at that time be fittingly 
spoken to the body of the apostles; if to the apostles only, it 
shows that He would not have His predictions made public, as 
they would greatly have angered the Jews and their publicity 
have answered no good purpose. 

The announcement to the disciples (Matt. xxvi. 1, 2) that 
“after two days was the Passover, when the Son of Man should 
be betrayed to be crucified,” was probably made soon after His 
discourse upon the Mount of Olives, and so upon the evening of 
Tuesday. Perhaps He wished distinctly to remind them that 
His coming in glory must be preceded by His death and resur- 
rection. Whether it was made to all the disciples or to the 
four, is not certain, but probably to all. Alford thinks that “it 
gives no certainty as to the time when the words were said; we 
do not know whether the current day was included or other- 
wise.” If, however, Thursday was the 14th Nisan, which was — 
popularly regarded as the first day of the Passover, according 
to the rule already adopted excluding one of the extremes and 
including the other, the announcement was made on Tuesday.? 
The meeting of the chief priests and the scribes and elders at 
the palace of Caiaphas for consultation, was upon the same 
evening. This may be inferred, at least, from Matthew’s words 
(xxvi. 3), “Then assembled together,” etc., the assembly being 
on the same day when the words were spoken (verse 2).3 From 
the fact that the council met at the palace of Caiaphas, and 
also that its session was in the evening, we may infer that it was 

1 Lichtenstein, Alford, Lange, Greswell, McClellan, 


2 Meyer, Lichtenstein, DeWette. 
8 Meyer; Ellicott places it on Wednesday. 





Part VII] CONSULTATION OF PRIESTS AND ELDERS. 447 


an extraordinary meeting, held for secret consultation.’ (See 
Luke xxii. 4, where mention is made of ‘the captains”; as to 
the regular place of session, the hall Gazith, see Lightfoot, in 
loco ; Schirer, ii. 1. 190.) It may readily be supposed that the 
severe language of the Lord had greatly enraged His enemies, 
and that they felt the necessity of taking immediate steps 
against Him. But they dared not arrest Him during the feast 
because of the people, and determined to postpone it till the 
feast was past. Thus, it may be, at the same hour when Jesus 
was foretelling that He should suffer at the Passover, His 
enemies were resolving that they would not arrest Him during 
the feast.2 But the divine prediction was accomplished in a 
way they had not anticipated. Judas, one of the Twelve, coming 
to them, offered for money to betray Him into their hands. 
They at once made a covenant with him, and he watched for an 
opportunity. Still it does not appear that he designed to betray 
Him during the feast, and his action on the evening following 
the Paschal supper was, as we shall see, forced upon him by the 
Lord. Whether Judas presented himself to the council at their 
session, is not said ; but it is not improbable that, hearing the 
Lord’s rebukes of their hypocrisy, and seeing how great was 
their exasperation against Him, he had watched their move- 
ments, and learned of their assembly at the high priest’s palace. 
This gave him the wished-for opportunity to enter into an agree- 
ment with them. 


Assuming without further discussion the correctness of the 
order of events already given—that the Lord reached Bethany on 
Friday the 8th Nisan, that a supper was given Him that evening or 
the next, that He made His entry into the city on Sunday the 10th, 
that He cleansed the temple on Monday the 11th, that He taught in 
the temple on Tuesday the 12th, and that He spent Wednesday the 
13th in retirement, there are still some minor points to be examined; 
and here, as in our examination of other points during this week, we 


1 Tradition makes the bargain with Judas to have been entered into at the coun- 
try house of Caiaphas, the ruins of which are still shown upon the summit of the Hill of 
Evil Counsel. The tradition is not ancient, but it is mentioned as a singular fact, that 
the monument of Annas, who may have had a country seat near his son-in-law, is found 
in this neighborhood. Williams, H. C., ii. 496. 

2 Some understand that they proposed to arrest Him before the feast. So Neander, 
Ewald; see contra, Meyer, in doco. 


448 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL. 


are to keep clearly in mind that the Jews computed the days from 
sunset to sunset. 

(a) The time of the supper at Bethany, whether at the beginning 
orend of the Sabbath? If the Lord reached Bethany before sunset on 
Friday, He might have partaken of the opening Sabbath meal, when 
the Sabbath lamp was lighted, and which was as good and bountiful 
as the family could afford. In this case. we must, however, suppose 
that it was known to the givers of the supper that He was coming, 
and so all necessary preparations were made before His and the guest's 
arrival. But Lightfoot and others think it to have been at “ the 
going out of the Sabbath.” This best corresponds to the circum- 
stances, and is more generally received. 

(0) The time when the Lord spake the discourse in Matthew 
xxiv., xxv., and parallels. No one of the Evangelists gives us a dis- 
tinct note of time, but from the fact that He was sitting on the Mount 
of Olives apparently on His way to Bethany, the natural inference is, 
that it was at the close of Tuesday, and the probability is that it was 
before or soon after sunset. 

(c) The time of the coming of the Greeks. This we have put on 
Tuesday, after the Lord’s words about the widow’s mite. If so, His 
words spoken in answer to their request may be regarded as the last 
He ever spake in the temple, and thus as having a special significance. 
It is said (John xii. 36): ‘‘ These things spake Jesus and departed, 
and did hide himself from them.” The words in verses 44 to 50 are 
not to be understood as a later address, but as said by Godet, ‘‘a 
summary of all the testimonies of Jesus which the Jews ought to have 
believed, but which they rejected.” (So, in substance, Meyer and 
most.) 

(dq) The visit of Judas to the chief priests. Was this on the 
game evening as the supper at Bethany, and after it, or four days later, 
either on Tuesday evening or on Wednesday ? Assuming, as we do, 
that the supper was on the evening following the Sabbath, and that 
Judas was then meditating his treachery, why should he delay so 
long to seek out the chief priests? It may be that he had formed the 
purpose to betray Him, but was made to waver in it by seeing how 
many friends the Lord had among the people, and the evident power- 
lessness of the rulers to arrest Him. It may have been the Lord’s 
words addressed to the disciples, which he heard: ‘‘ Ye know that 
after two days is the Passover, and the Son of Man is betrayed to be 
crucified,” and which showed to him the impolicy and danger of 
any longer delay, so that he hastened that same evening to make his 
bargain with them. The note of time (Matt. xxvi. 14), ‘‘ then — rére 





Part VII.] DISCOURSE ON THE MOUNT OF OLIVES. 449 


—Judas went unto the chief priests,” refers back to the events in 
verses 1 to 5, and not to the supper. It cannot be decided with any 
certainty whether the consultation at the palace of Caiaphas was held 
on Tuesday or Wednesday, but from the words of Matthew, ‘‘ From 
that time he sought opportunity to betray Him,” the earlier period is 
preferable. 

It is to be noted that, although the Lord spake early in His min- 
istry (Matt. viii. 12) of the casting out of ‘‘the children of the king- 
dom,” and the admission of the Gentiles, yet it was not till this time 
that He foretold the destruction of the holy city. On the day of His 
entry when He came in view of it, ‘‘He wept over it” as not knowing 
the time of its visitation, and therefore to be given into the hands of 
its enemies. (See also Matt. xxii. 7.) He did not, however, speak 
specifically of the temple and its destruction till His final departure 
from it (Matt. xxiv. 1), unless we regard His words in Luke (xxi. 
20 ff.) as spoken earlier in the day. 

It is in question whether the Lord’s discourse in Matthew xxiv. 
and xxv. is to be identified with that in Luke xxi. 5 ff. They are 
said by some to be distinct discourses, and spoken at different places 
and times: one during the day and in the temple, the other at even- 
ing and on the Mount of Olives. It is said by Meyer: ‘‘There is no 
~ trace in Luke that this discourse was spoken on the Mount of Olives, 
but belongs to the transactions in the temple.” The same conclusion 
is reached by some on internal grounds. (See Marquis in the Luth- 
eran Qt. Rev., Jan., 1887.) It isa point which cannot be discussed 
here; but it may be remarked that Matthew’s words seem to embrace 
some events subsequent in time to those foretold in Luke. It may be 
that some of the predictions given by the former which do not find 
any obvious applications to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, 
may look forward to events yet to come, since it is plain that God’s 
purpose in the Jews is not yet accomplished. His declaration, 
“* Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass 
away,” implies that His predictions run far into the future, and can- 
not be fully comprehended till the consummation is reached. 

We have still to ask how the disciples understood the Lord’s pre- 
diction of the overthrow of the temple in its relation to the Messianic 
kingdom. It must at this time have been plain to them that the 
tulers would not receive Him as the Messiah, and that if He was to 
reign in Jerusalem, He must cast them out. It may have been this 
establishment of His authority which they understood by His ‘‘com- 
ing” — rapovela — regarding it, on the one side, as the end of the pres- 
ent age —6 alwyv ovros — and on the other, as the beginning of the new 


450 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


— 6 aluv 6 ué\kwv —“‘ the world to come.” Clear and oft-repeated as 
His declarations had been respecting His death, they were not under- 
stood; and therefore, they had no conception of a resurrection and 
return to earth as His coming; nor did they think of any personal 
departure, unless they held what Edersheim (ii. 436) affirms to have 
been the general opinion, that ‘‘the Messiah would appear, carry on 
His work, then disappear, probably for forty-five days, then re- 
appear, and destroy the hostile powers of the world.” That a period 
of great trouble would precede the setting up of the Messianic 
kingdom, was generally believed, and the wars of that time were 
designated as the “travail pangs” or ‘‘ birth throes.” (See Matt. 
xxiv. 8, in R. V.: ‘‘ All these things are the beginning of travail.” 
Hamburger, ii. 735.) The disciples would naturally understand 
that during this time the temple would be destroyed, and that the 
Lord would rebuild it at His coming or assumption of the kingdom. 


WEDNESDAY, 5TH AprRIL, 13TH Nisan, 7838. A.D. 80. 


During this day the Lord remained in seclusion at Bethany. 


The Lord left the temple for the last time on Tuesday after- 
noon. His public labors were ended. There remained, how- 
ever, a few hours before the Passover. How was this period 
spent? We can well believe that some part of it was spent alone 
that He might enjoy that free communion with God which He 
had so earnestly sought in the midst of His active labors, and 
which was now doubly dear to Him in view of His speedy 
death. Some part of it also was doubtless devoted to His disci- 
ples, giving them such counsel and encouragement as was de- 
manded by the very peculiar and trying circumstances in which 
they were placed. That Wednesday was spent in retirement is 
generally admitted,’ but is questioned by Stroud, who affirms 
that Jesus returned to Jerusalem on the morning of that day, 
and places at this time all in John xii. 20 ff. 


THuRSDAY, 6TH AprRIL, 14TH Nisan, 783. A.D. 30. 


From Bethany the Lord sends Peter and John into the Marv. xxvi. 17-19 
city to prepare the Passover. He describes aman whom Mark xiv. 12-16. 
they would meet, and who would show them a room LUKE xxii. 7-13 
furnished, where they should make ready for the supper. 


1 Wieseler, Robinson, Ellicott. 





Part VII.] PETER AND JOHN PREPARE THE PASSOVER. 451 


He remains at Bethany till toward evening, when He Marv. xxvi. 20. 
enters the city, and goes to the room where the supper Mark xiv. 17. 
is to be eaten. LUKE xxii. 14. 


At this feast the Jews divided themselves into companies or 
households, of not less than ten nor more than twenty persons; 
and these together consumed the paschal lamb.’ One of the 
number, acting as the representative of all, presented the lamb 
in the court of the temple, and aided the Levites in its sacrifice. 
The victim was then carried away by the offerer to the house 
where it was to be eaten, and there wholly consumed. On this 
occasion Peter and John acted as the representatives of the Lord 
and of His apostles at the temple, and provided the bread, wine, 
bitter herbs, and all that was necessary for the proper celebra- 
tion of the feast; and it is probable, therefore, that they went 
early in the day, though the cleansing of the house from leaven 
was the work of the owner. It appears that, up to this time, the 
disciples did not know where the Lord would eat the Passover, 
and, as the hour drew nigh, inquired of Him (Matt. xxvi. 17). 
The ground of His silence is supposed to have been the desire 
to keep Judas in ignorance of the place, lest he should attempt 

to arrest the Lord there. According to Mark and Luke, the two 
apostles were to go to the city, and aman should meet them bear- 
ing a pitcher of water, whom they should follow into whatsoever 
house he entered. There they should find a guest-chamber, 
furnished and prepared, which the master of the house should 
place at their disposal. Matthew says nothing of their meeting 
the man with the pitcher, but makes the two to have gone 
directly to the house. Meyer supposes that Matthew follows the 
early tradition, which represents the master of the house as a 
disciple of Jesus, who had, earlier in the week, arranged with 
Him for the use of the guest-chamber; and that Mark and Luke 
follow a later tradition, which represents the Lord as ignorant 
of the man, but giving directions to the two through prophetic 
foresight. There is no need of thus supposing two traditions. 
Matthew passes over in silence the incident of the man with the 
pitcher, upon what grounds we cannot state, but this silence is 
no way inconsistent with the statements of the other Evangelists. 


1 Exod. xii. 3, 4; Josephus, War, vi. 9. 3. 


452 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


From Mark and Luke it is apparent that no agreement had been 
made by the Lord for the room; else He would not have given 
such directions to the two apostles, but have sent them directly 
to the house.'’ Whether the master of the house was an entire 
stranger to Jesus, or a concealed disciple, like Joseph or Nicode- 
mus, or an open follower, perhaps the father of the Evangelist 
Mark, is not certain? The Lord’s message to Him, “ My time 
is at hand, I will keep the Passover at thy house, with my 
disciples,” seems, however, to presuppose some previous ac- 
quaintance; as also the phrase, “the Master saith.” This, how- 
ever, is not necessary, if, as said by Alexander, “the whole pro- 
ceeding be regarded as extraordinary, and the result secured by 
a special superhuman influence.”’ 

It is at this point that we meet the difficult questions con- 
nected with the last Passover, but before we enter upon them, 
it is necessary to have clearly before us the origin and nature 
of this feast, and the peculiarities of its observance. 


THE PASSOVER. 


1. Its origin and design. It was instituted in commemoration 
of the deliverance of the Jews in Egypt from the destroying angel 
when all the first-born of the Egyptians were slain (Ex. xii. 14 ff.). 
This remarkable deliverance was ever after to be commemorated by a 
feast of seven days, the feast of unleavened bread —ra djvua. But 
distinct from this feast and introductory to it, was the paschal sup- 
per, or ‘‘the Lord’s passover,” — 73 rdcxa. The people being divided 
into households or families of not less than ten or more than twenty 


persons, a lamb was slain for each family, and afterwards eaten with — 


unleavened bread and bitter herbs. Now followed a feast of seven 
days’s continuance in which the bread eaten was unleavened. 

2. The paschal supper. Distinguishing the paschal supper from 
the feast following, we ask the manner of its celebration. A lamb or 
goat was to be selected on the 10th Nisan, a male without blemish, 
and slain on the 14th ‘‘ between the evenings” (Ex. xii. 6; Levit. 
xxiii. 5; Num. ix. 3). The expression, ‘‘ between the evenings,” was 
generally understood by the Jews of the period from the decline of 
the sun to its setting, or from 3-6 p.m. This was without doubt the 


1 Alford, Alexander. 

2 See Bynaeus, i. 480, who gives an account of early opinions. In proof of His 
discipleship, Edersheim refers to the fact that the Lord asked for a common apartment, 
but was assigned ‘‘ the upper chamber,” the largest and best room. 


a 


Part VII] PASCHAL LAMB AND THANK OFFERINGS. 453 


ruling mode of computation in the Lord’s day (Josephus, War, vi. 9. 3; 
Antiq. v. 4. 3; Lightfoot, Temple Service, ix. 139; Eders., ii. 490). 
The Karaites and Samaritans, however, referred it to the period be- 
tween sunset and dark, or from 6-7 Pp. m. (Winer, ii. 198). Wieseler 
refers it to a period a little before and a little after the going down 
of the sun, say from 5-7 P. M., citing Deut. xvi. 6 in proof. Ewald 
makes it to include three hours before and three hours after sunset. 

The paschal lamb was originally slain by the head of each family 
in his own house, but afterward in the court of the temple where 
stood the brazen altar (Deut. xvi. 2-6). (As to the changes between 
the early and later usages, see Eders., ‘‘Temple,” 180 ff.). After it 
was slain came the supper set out in some place prepared. This was 
upon the evening following the 14th Nisan; or, since the Jews 
counted the day to begin at sunset, on the beginning of the 15th. 
The lamb was to be wholly consumed before morning either by eat- 
ing or by fire. 

8. Feast of unleayened bread. The feast of unleavened bread, 
though to be distinguished from the paschal supper, yet began at the 
same time, inasmuch as all leaven was removed from the house by 
noon of the 14th, and no leavened bread eaten after this. But while 
the paschal supper was with unleavened bread, as was the rest of the 

feast, it had two elements peculiar to itself, the lamb and the bitter 
herbs. In one sense it was the beginning of the feast, but in another, 
it was regarded as distinct from it. As the paschal lamb was wholly 
consumed at the paschal supper, and as unleayened bread would but 
poorly furnish a festal table, other food must be provided, and was 
done in the Chagigah. These embraced the sacrifices of sheep and 
bullocks voluntarily made. Concerning them Maimonides (quoted by 
Ainsworth on Deut. xvi. 2) says: ‘‘ When they offer the passover in 
the first month, they offer it with peace-offerings on the 14th day, of 
the flock and of the herd; and this is called the Chagigah, a feast 
offering of the 14th day. And of this it is said that ‘‘ thou shalt 
sacrifice the passover to the Lord thy God of the flock and the herd.” 

To understand the relation of the Chagigah to the Passover in 
general, we must remember that this festival was the commemoration 
of a great national deliverance, and, as such, to be kept with thanks- 
giving and joy. The paschal supper, strictly speaking, seems to have 
had much less of the joyous element in it than the rest of the feast. 
As said by Lightfoot: ‘‘The eating of the lamb was the very least 
part of the joy; a thing rubbing up the remembrance of affliction, 
rather than denoting gladness and making merry.” The lamb, which 
constituted the chief part of the supper, reminded them of that fearful 


454 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


night when all the first-born of Egypt died; the bitter herbs with 
which it was eaten, reminded them of the bitterness of their Egyptian 
bondage; and all the attendant circumstances would tend to beget 
seriousness and reflection. The festival character of the season ap- 
peared much more upon the succeeding day when the peace-offerings 
voluntarily presented to God in token of thankfulness were eaten. 

It was the word of the Lord: ‘‘ None shall appear before me 
empty ” (Ex. xxiii, 15), and this was understood of the burnt-offerings 
and peace-offerings in addition to the paschal lamb. It is said by 
Maimonides (quoted by Ainsworth, in loco): ‘‘The rejoicing spoken 
of at the feasts is that he offers peace-offerings . . . . and these 
are called peace-offerings of the rejoicing of the feast ” (Deut. xxvii. 7). 
The day when they were offered is called ‘‘the first great day of the 
feast’; at the passover, on the 15th Nisan. But were they also eaten 
at the paschal supper? That they sometimes were, is admitted; but. 


according to Lightfoot (on John xviii. 28), only when the lamb was 


not sufficient for the company. It is said by Edersheim (‘‘ Temple,” 
186): ‘‘The Chagigah might be twofold. The first Chagigah was 
offered on the 14th Nisan, the day of the paschal sacrifice, and 
formed afterwards part of the paschal supper. The second Chagigah 
was offered on the 15th Nisan, on the first day of the feast of un- 
leavened bread.” But the first was only offered when the lamb was 
not sufficient fora meal. The usual time for the Chagigah was on 
the 15th after the morning sacrifice, and with them the rejoicing was 
more directly connected. 

4. The wave sheaf. The ceremonies of the second day of the 
feast — the 16th Nisan— were peculiar, and are important to be 
noted. Upon this day the first fruits of the barley harvest were 
brought to the temple, and waved before the Lord to consecrate the 
harvest, and not till this was done might any one begin his reaping 
(Levit. xxiii. 10-12; Josephus, Antiq., iii. 10.5). (As to the connec- 
tion of this rite with the general scope of the passover, see Winer, 
ii. 201; Bahr, ii. 638.) 

Thus we find in the paschal festival three distinct solemnities: 
First. The killing of the paschal lamb on the afternoon of the 14th 
Nisan, and the eating of it the evening following, or on the begin- 
ning of the 15th. Second. The feast of unleavened bread exclusive 
of the paschal supper, and continuing to the close of the 2ist day 
of Nisan. Third. The offering of the first fruits of the barley harvest 
on the 16th Nisan, or second day of the feast. To the latter no dis- 
tinct allusion is made by the Evangelists. 

The removal of the leaven from their houses, the preparations for 


the paschal supper, and the sacrifice of the lamb, all taking place on 


Part VIL] OBSERVANCE OF THE FEAST SABBATHS. 455 


the 14th Nisan, this day was popularly called the first day of the 
feast, thus extending it to eight days.’ The Evangelists follow this 
popular usage (Matt. xxvi. 17; Mark xiv. 12; Luke xxii. 7). Upon 
each of the seven days of the feast was offered a sacrifice for the whole 
people (Num. xxviii. 19-24). The first and last days of the feast, or 
the 15th and 2ist, were holy days, or sabbaths (Lev. xxiii. 7, 8). But 
these feast sabbaths do not seem ever to have been regarded as equal 
in sacredness to the week-Sabbaths; and it is important that the dis- 
tinction between them should be clearly seen, as it has an important 
bearing upon several points to be hereafter discussed. 

5. Feast Sabbaths. Besides the weekly Sabbath, there were seven 
days of the year that had a sabbatical character: the first and seventh 
of the feast of unleavened bread; the day of Pentecost; the first and 
the tenth of the seventh month; and the first and eighth of the feast 
of Tabernacles. Of these, one, the tenth of the seventh month, the 
day of Atonement, was put on the same footing as the weekly Sabbath 
in respect to labor. No work at all could be done upon it; but on 
the other six feast sabbaths they could do no servile work (Lev. xxiii. 
3-39). These were called by the Talmudists “good days.” It is not 
wholly clear what kind of work was not servile, but the preparation 
of food was expressly permitted (Exod. xii. 16). Maimonides (quoted 
by Ainsworth) says: ‘‘All work needful about meat is lawful, as kill- 
ing of beasts, and baking of bread, and kneading of dough, and the 
like. But such work as may be done in the evening of a feast day 
they do not on a feast day, as they may not reap, nor thrash, nor win- 
now, nor grind the corn, nor the like. Bathing and anointing are 
contained under the general head of meat and drink, and may be 
done on the feast day.” The penalty for doing servile work on these 
days was, according to Maimonides, to be beaten; but the penalty 
for working on the Sabbath was death (Num. xy. 32-35). 

To these feast sabbaths we find few allusions in Jewish history, 
either in the Old Testament or in Josephus. All the violations of the 
Sabbath with which the Lord was charged were those of the weekly 
Sabbath. 

6. Use of terms. With these preliminary observations upon the 
question of time, we pass to the consideration of the terms applied to 
the passover, firstin the Old Testament and then in the New. The 
Hebrew pesach, or Aramaic pascah, refers commonly to the paschal 
lamb. ‘‘ Draw out and take you a lamb, and kill the passover” 
(Ex. xii. 21). To kill the passover, and to eat the passover, is to kill 
and eat the paschal lamb (see Exod. xii. 11; Num. ix. 26; 2 


1 Josephus, Antiq., ii. 15. 1, 


456 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


Chron. xxx. 15).. But as with the flesh of the lamb unleavened bread 
was eaten, the phrase ‘‘ to eat the passover” naturally came to em- 
brace the whole feast, including the peace offerings (Deut. xvi. 2; 2 
Chron. xxx. 1); and on the other hand, ‘‘the feast of unleavened 
bread” embraced the paschal lamb, as well as all the sacrifices that 
followed it (Deut. xvi. 16; 2 Chron. xxx. 21). In the days of Josiah, 
he and his princes gave small cattle and oxen for passovers— pesachim 
(2 Chron. xxxv. 7-9). But some distinguish these, the lamb and 
kid only — the small cattle — being killed for the paschal supper, the 
oxen for the peace-offerings. (So Schiirer, 12.)! Thus, as the initial 
act and giving character to all that followed, the word pesach became 
a designation of the feast in general. ‘‘To keep the passover,” 
was to observe all the solemnities of the feast without distinction 
of special acts, unless through the force of the context the meaning 
must be limited to the paschal supper. It is thus used in 2 Kings 
Xxilii, 21; 2 Chron. xxx. 1; 2 Chron. xxxv. 1; Ezek. xlv. 21. 

From this examination of the terms in the Old Testament, we 
find that there is no exact discrimination in their use. Sometimes 
the passover and the feast of unleavened bread are expressly distin- 
guished, and the former limited to the paschal supper (Lev. xxiii. 5, 
6; Num. xxviii. 16, 17). At other times they are used interchange- 
ably. The precise meaning in each case must be determined by the 
connection in which it stands. 

We proceed to consider the usage of these terms in the New 
Testament. And first their usage by the Synoptists. Here also the 
term passover, 7d wdcya, is used in its narrowest sense, of the paschal 
lamb. Thus in Mark xiv. 12, ‘‘ when they killed the passover”; in 
Luke xxii. 7, ‘‘ when the passover must be killed.” It is used in the 
large sense, including both the sacrifice of the lamb and the supper, 
Matt. xxvi. 17; Mark xiv. 14; Luke xxii. 11. It is used as a 
designation of the feast in its whole extent, Matt. xxvi. 2; Luke 
xxii. 1. (See also Mark xiv. 1.) That the phrase, ‘‘feast of un- 
leavened bread,” raé d{vya, embraced the paschal supper, appears from 
Matt. xxvi. 17; Mark xiv. 12; Luke xxii. 7. 

Turning from the Synoptists to John, it is at once apparent that 
he generally uses the term passover, 7d rdécxa, in its largest sense, as em- 
bracing the whole feast. So ii. 13 and 28; vi. 4; xi. 55; xii. 1; in 
xiii. 1, it is “‘the feast of the passover.” So also in the references to 
it as the feast, éoprn, iv. 45; xi. 56; xii. 12 and 20; xiii. 29. In 


1 So Bleek, Beitrige, 111. See other constructions in Cudworth, ii. 522. Schiirer, 
Akademische Festschrift iber, bayetv 7 macxa, 1883, 13, affirms thatat that time both 
of the flock and herd might be eaten at the paschal supper. As against Schiirer, see 
Eders., ii. 566, note; also Bissell, Pentateuch, 108. 


Part VII.] THE TERM PASSOVER. 457 


xiii. 29, in xviii. 28 and 39, and in xix. 14, its meaning is in dis- 
pute. 

Our way being now prepared, we enter upon the discussion of the 
disputed points connected with the Lord’s last paschal supper. 
For the sake of clearness we may divide them into two classes: 
I. Those relating to His legal observance of the supper, as both to 
the time, and the manner. II. Those relating to the accounts which 
the Evangelists give of the observance, whether in any, or in what, 
particulars discrepant. 

1. 1. Thetime. Did the Lord observe the legal prescription as 
to tne time, and did He eat the supper at the same time as the Jews? 
{t is said by some that there were two legal days, one of which He 
observed; while the Jews observed the other. The ground of this is 
found in the two ways of determining the first day of the month, and 
consequently the right day of the feast, one by astronomical calcula- 
sion, and the other by ocular observation; and thus the paschal lamb 
might be slain on the 14th Nisan of real, or the 14th of apparent, 
time. One of these modes, it is said, was followed by the Sadducees, 
and the other by the Pharisees; Jesus, with the Sadducees, kept the 
true day, the Pharisees and most of the Jews the apparent day. If, 
however, such a difference in the mode of computation did actually 
exist between the Rabbinites and Karaites after the destruction of 
Jerusalem, there is no proof that it did before.’ The only way of 
determining the beginning of the month practised by the Jews before 
the capture of the city by Titus, A. D. 70, was the appearance of 
the new moon. Thus there could not have been, during the Lord’s 
ministry, two legal days for the observance of the passover; and the 
supposition that He, with one part of the Jews, rightly observed 
Thursday as astronomically correct, and that another part rightly 
observed Friday as determined by the appearance of the new moon, is 
without any foundation. 

A modification of this view has lately been presented by Serno.” 
He supposes that, as the moon in some sections of the country might 
be seen at its first appearance, and in others be hidden by the clouds, 
and thus a difference in computation arise, the first day of the feast 
was doubled, and the paschal supper was lawfully eaten on either. 
But this was true only of the Jews living without Palestine, and not 
of those within it. When the authorities at Jerusalem had determined 
the first of the month, all succeeding days were reckoned from it; and 


1 Winer, ii. 150; Paulus, iii. 486. 
2Der Tag des letzten Passahmahles. Berlin, 1859, 35 ff. 


20 


458 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


if a Jew from any distant part of the land had mistaken the day of the 
month through ignorance of the appearing of the moon, he must make 
the later feast days conform to those fixed upon by the Sanhedrin. 
Even if the latter had erred, their decision was final. Nor was an ex- 
ception made, as affirmed by Serno, in favor of the Galilwans, so that the 
Lord following their usage could keep the feast a day earlier than the 
citizens of Judea. (See Langen, 87.) 

A little different position is taken by Cudworth (True Notion of 
the Lord’s Supper, ii. 528), who says, that the Jews having erred this 
year in the day, placing it too late, the Lord corrected the error, and 
directed the supper to be prepared at the legal time, on Thursday 
evening. He affirms, also, that it was ‘‘a custom among the Jews 
in such doubtful cases as these, which oftentimes fell out, to permit 
the feasts to be solemnized, or passover killed on two serial days 
together.” He quotes Scaliger to the same effect. But all this is 
without good basis. There is not any sufficient evidence that the 
paschal supper ever was, or could have been, observed upon two suc- 
cessive days. 

Some have affirmed that a second day of sacrifice was made neces- 
sary through the multitude of the paschal lambs to be slain, and there- 
fore permitted by the authorities. But Josephus, who (as already 
quoted) mentions the great number of the sacrifices, says nothing of 
this difficulty, nor do contemporaneous writers refer to it. (See Sepp, 
vi. 41.) 

We find, then, no good grounds for believing that the Jews re- 
cognized two distinct days as equally legal for the paschal solemnities ; 
or that, through error of computation, they observed the wrong day, 
and the Lord the right one. 

2. It is said that the Lord kept the passover on Thursday, at the 
appointed time, but that the Jews delayed it till the next evening. 
The ground of this delay is found in the statement, that when the 15th 
Nisan, the first day of the feast, and so a sabbath (Lev. xxiii. 7, 8), 
fell upon Friday, and thus two sabbaths, the feast sabbath and week 
sabbath, would immediately follow each other, the Jews united them 
in one, and the sacrifice of the paschal lamb on the 14th was post- 
poned to the 15th. Thus the Lord, according to the law, ate the 
paschal supper on Thursday evening, but the Jews on Friday 
evening.’ But this explanation has no sufficient basis, as there is 
no room for doubt that such changes of the feasts, and particularly 


1 So Calvin, on Matt. xxvi. 17, who remarks that the Jews affirm that this was done 
by them after their return from Babylon, and by God’s express direction. See Maldona 
tus, in Joco, who takes the same view. 


Part VII.] ANTICIPATION OF THE PASSOVER. 459 


the rule forbidding that the passover should fall on Friday, were 
posterior to the destruction of Jerusalem, probably about 400 A. D.' 

Another ground of delay applying only to this time, was given 
early by Eusebius and others, that the Jews were so busy with their ac- 
cusations against Christ that they postponed the feast till His trial and 
crucifixion should be over. This is so intrinsically improbable that 
it now finds no defenders. A modification of this is still supported 
by some: that those most active against Him, and who are specially 
alluded to (John xviii. 28) as not willing to enter the judgment hall, 
did delay their paschal supper on this account.? This view will be 
hereafter noticed. 

We do not thus find any proof that the Jews delayed the pass- 
over after the legal time. 

3. That the Lord anticipated the true day upon typical grounds. 
That He anticipated the day, was very early affirmed by some of the 
fathers, supposing, that as the true Paschal Lamb —the Antitype— 
He must have suffered at the hour when the typical lamb was slain, and 
so upon the 14th Nisan. The supper He observed must, therefore, 
have been on the evening following the 13th. This point had in the 
first days of the church a special importance, because of the controversy 
with some of the Christian Jews in regard to the binding force of the 
Mosaic laws. It was asserted by them, that as Jesus kept the legal 
passover, the paschal sacrifice and supper, these were still binding, 
and to be kept in the Church. In reply, it was asserted by many of 
the Christians that He did not eat the paschal supper, but, as the true 
Paschal Lamb, was slain at the hour appointed for the sacrifice of the 
passover. In the Greek Church this become by degrees the ruling 
opinion, and is generally defended by her writers.* In the Latin 
Church, on the other hand, it was generally denied; but in neither is 
it made an article of faith. The question as to the use of leavened or 
unleavened bread in the Eucharist may have had some influence upon 
the matter; the Greeks, using the former, were led to say that the 
Lord used it at the institution of the rite, and that, therefore, it was 
not the true paschal supper, at which only unleavened bread was 
used; while the Latins, using unleavened bread, maintained that the 
Eucharist was instituted at the true paschal supper. 

This view, that the Lord of His own authority anticipated the 
paschal supper, because of its antiquity, has found much favor; and is 


1 Wichelhaus, 203; Paulus, iii. 487, note; Cudworth, ii. 524; Roth, 15 ff. 

2 Fairbairn, Her. Man., 382; Wordsworth, in loco. 

% See Maldonatus, Matt. xxvi. 1: Ut veritas figurae responderet, et verus agnus 
eodem die, quo typicus, occideretur. Wichelhaus, 190; Greswell, ii. 162 ff. 


460 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


now supported by many.’ The particular passages urged in its support 
will be later considered. 

But, beside other objections drawn from the accounts of the 
Synoptists, it was intrinsically impossible that He could have antici- 
pated it. The paschal lamb must have been slain in the temple by the 
priests, and they would not have aided in its sacrifice upon a day 
which they did not recognize as the legal one. Still less would they 
have done this for the Lord and His disciples. To avoid this dif- 
ficulty, Greswell quotes Philo (iii. 146) to show that each man was at 
this time his own priest, and could slay the lamb, if he pleased, in 
his own dwelling, and that this was now done. But the weight of 
authority is all against him. The lamb must be slain, not in any 
private house, but in the temple, and its blood sprinkled upon the 
altar. Had the Lord not done this, it doubtless would have been 
known, and have strengthened the feeling against Him. 

We thus find it difficult to believe that the Lord anticipated the 
paschal supper, observing all the legal prescriptions, except that as to 
time. He who came to fulfill, not to destroy, the law, would not in so 
important a matter have set it aside. We may rather say, in the 
words of another: ‘‘There seem insuperable objections to the idea, 
either that the Lord did not keep the true passover, or that He could 
have kept it according to the law, unless on the day recognized by 
the Jews and their rulers. . . . . Moreover, there is something 
very significant in the Lord observing the legal type before He ful- 
filled it anti-typically. Dying on the 15th, He rose again on the 17th 
of the month, as the passover had been slain on the 14th at even, and 
the first fruit omer or sheaf had been waved on the 16th, the like 
interval of one day occurring in both in the type and the antitype.” 
It will be seen that the real question is, whether the Lord, being the 
Antitype, should first have observed the type. We cannot doubt that 
He who came to fulfill the law, would do this, and therefore that 
He kept the passover at the legal time. It is not essential to the 
typical relation, that as the lamb was killed on the afternoon of the 
14th Nisan, He should be crucified at the same hour. 

4, The manner. Did the Lord observe the legal prescriptions as 
to the manner of the supper? It is said by some (@) that it was a 
memorial supper. Such a memorial supper, it is said by some, the 
Jews who could not be present at the feast, were permitted to observe 
in their own homes when all the forms of the passover were kept, 


1 So Krafft, 129; Greswell, iii. 133; Ellicott, 322; J. Muller, in Herzog’s Real Encyc., 
i. 22; Clinton, ii, 240; The Author of ‘* The Messiah,’’ Lindsay, Sepp, Norris, Westcott, 
Farrar, Aldrich. 3 


Part VII] DAY OF THE PASCHAL SUPPER. 461 


except the eating of the lamb.’ But such a supper could be only 
eaten out of Jerusalem, and upon the legal day, not in the city, and 
upon the day previous. Nor is there any evidence that this memorial 
passover was ever observed till after the destruction of Jerusalem, 
when it became impossible that the lamb could be slain in the temple, 
and the supper was necessarily limited to unleavened bread and bitter 
herbs. 

(6) That it was a farewell supper, and not in any true sense a 
paschal supper, although the usual elements of such supper were on the 
table. It is said that the Mosaic type was fulfilled in the institution 
of the Lord’s Supper; what took place at the meal before this institu- 
tion, was unimportant. But against this is the fact that the Lord 
used in the institution of His supper not merely some of the 
materials, bread and wine; but the forms, which, as well as the direc- 
tions given by Him respecting its preparation, show that He did 
keep the true paschal supper. 

We find, then, no sufficient grounds for the belief that the Lord 
did not observe the legal prescriptions respecting the paschal supper, 
both as to the time, and the manner of its observance. 

II. Are there in the accounts of the Evangelists discrepancies as 
to the time or manner of the paschal supper ? 

1. As to time: 

It is admitted on all sides, and therefore, need not be here consid- 
ered, that Jesus died on Friday in the afternoon.? The eating of the 
supper on the evening previous was, therefore, on Thursday evening; 
His resurrection was on the Sunday following. The point in ques- 
tion is not respecting the day of the week, but the day of the month. 
Was Friday the 14th or 15th Nisan? It is said that John asserts the 
former, the Synoptists the latter. We give the discrepancy in tabu- 
lar form: 

Sr. Jonn. SYNOPTISTS. 
Supper eaten, evening of Thursday, Evening of Thursday, 14th 
13th Nisan. Nisan. 
Jesus crucified, Friday, 14th Nisan. Friday, 15th Nisan. 
Was in the grave, Saturday, 15th Saturday, 16th Nisan. 
Nisan. 
Resurrection, Sunday, 16th Nisan. Sunday, 17th Nisan. 

The supper of the Synoptists. We may best begin our enquiry by 
asking: Do the Synoptists put the supper on the evening following 
the 14th Nisan? Their language on its face clearly affirms this: ‘‘ Now 


1 So Grotius, on Matt. xxvi. 11. 
2 See, however, Westcott, Introduction, 317 ff. 


462 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


the first day of the feast of unleavened bread — rj 62 rpérp Trav dvipws 
— the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Where wilt Thou that we pre- 
pare for Thee to eat the passover?” . . . (Matt. xxvi. 17.) ‘‘ And the 
first day of unleavened bread — kal rH xpérn juepa Tay &Cduerv— when 
they killed the passover, His disciples said unto Him” (Mark xiv. 
12). ‘‘Then came the day of unleavened bread when the passover 
must be killed,” —% qyépa rSv dthuwv— (Luke xxii. 7. Compare 
this with verse 1: ‘‘ Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh ”). 
That this was the 14th Nisan seems beyond reasonable doubt, for on 
the afternoon of this day the paschal lamb was slain, and all prepara- 
tions made for the feast that began at evening with the paschal sup- 
per. All the Evangelists say: ‘‘ They made ready the passover — 
the paschal supper” — and this must have embraced the lamb. Ashas 
been already remarked, this was not, strictly speaking, the first day of 
the feast, for this began at sunset with the 15th, but, it was in popu- 
lar language so called; and the circumstance that the lamb was yet 
to be slain sufficiently determines what day was meant. (Compare 
Exod. xii. 18.) 

The attempts so to interpret these statements as to make them re- 
fer to an anticipatory supper on the evening following the 13th Nisan, 

-are very forced and unsatisfactory, since neither according to the 
law nor to usage was the paschal lamb slain on that day. 

It is said by Godet (on John xix. 41, 42), that as ‘‘ the first day of 
unleavened bread,” as used by the Synoptists, means the 14th Nisan, 
and as the day began at sunset, we are either obliged to hold that 
the commission given to the two apostles to prepare for the supper 
was at its beginning, 7. e. after the sunset following the 13th (so West- 
cott), or that it was earlier and on the 13th itself, probably some 
hours before sunset. The two disciples indeed thought that they 
were to make ready for the evening of the next day, the 14th Nisan, 
but the Lord told them that His time was that very evening. Of 
course, as Godet admits, there was no sacrifice of the lamb in the tem- 
ple, and without such a sacrifice the supper was only a private meal. 


But aside from this, we cannot, without great violence to the language 


of the Synoptists, make it to refer to an anticipatory sacrifice on the 
evening of the 18th Nisan. Its whole tenor makes the very strong 
fmpression upon us that the disciples prepared, and that the Lord ate 
the paschal lamb at the same time when it was prepared and eaten 
by the people in general. The indications, which a few think they 
find in certain expressions, are very slight and unimportant. Thus it 
is said that from the Lord’s words (Matt. xxvi. 18): ‘‘ My time is at 
hand, I will keep the passover at thy house,” it is a valid inference 





a 


4 


a 


Part VII.] THE SUPPER MENTIONED BY JOHN, 463 


that this supper was ‘‘ out of course,” and before the usual time. 
(Godet.) But clearly by ‘my time ” there is no reference to the hour 
of the meal, but to the time of his suffering. In like way, His words 
(Luke xxii. 15): ‘‘ With desire I have desired to eat this passover 
with you before I suffer,” have been understood as meaning that this 
passover was peculiar in that it was before the usual time, or as one 
at which there was no paschal lamb. (Caspari.) But the obvious 
meaning is, that it had special significance because it was the last. 
The truth is well expressed by Robinson:? ‘‘ Their language is full, 
explicit, and decisive, to the effect that our Lord’s last meal with His 
disciples was the regular and ordinary paschal supper of the Jews, 
introducing the festival of unleavened bread on the evening after 
the 14th day of Nisan.” 

Taking then as established, that the Synoptists make the supper 
eaten by the Lord to have been the true paschal supper, let us con- 
sider in detail the statements of John that bear upon the point. 
The first of these we find in xiii. 1, ff., where mention is made of a 
supper where Jesus washed the disciples’ feet. Was this the paschal 
supper ? If so, when was it eaten ? 

The supper of John. Was this the paschal supper? This is de- 
nied by not a few, who think it to have been a supper before the 
paschal supper, and one not mentioned at all by theSynoptists. The 
grounds of thisconclusion are: 1st, that it is not described by John 
as a paschal meal; 2d, that the act of feet washing was incongruous 
with such a meal; 3d, that comparing John xiii. 27 with Luke xxii. 
3, where it is said that ‘‘ Satan entered into Judas,” both refer to the 
same thing, and this supper must therefore have been before the pas- 
chal supper; 4th, that the interpretations of the Lord’s words to 
Judas (verse 29) show that this supper was still future; 5th, that His 
words at the close of the supper (xiv. 31) ‘‘ Arise, let us go hence,” 
refer to His going with the disciples from the place of the supper to 
Jerusalem, there to keep the paschal feast. If not a paschal supper 
eaten at the appointed time, when was it eaten? Some say on Tuesday 
evening, some on Wednesday evening. The first is advocated by 
Lightfoot, and for the purpose of comparison we give his order: 

Saturday — Sabbath,— 9th Nisan, He sups with Lazarus at Beth- 
any; Tuesday, 12th Nisan, He sups with Simon at Bethany. It is 
this supper which is mentioned by John when the feet. were washed, 
and the subsequent events and the Lord’s discourse at this time are 
contained in chapter xiii. He continued in Bethany till Thursday, 
14th Nisan, and His words, chapter xiv. were spoken at Bethany 


1 Har., 246. See to same effect, Bleek, Beitrige, 184; Edersheim, ii. 481. 


464 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


just before He went into the city to the paschal supper.* Chapters 
Xv., Xvi., and xvii. were spoken at the end of the paschal supper on 
Thursday evening. Thus Lightfoot makes three suppers, of which 
John mentions two (xii. 2 and xiii. 2); the paschal supper he does 
not speak of, and there is consequently no discrepancy with the 
Synoptists as to its time. 

Among those who put this supper on Wednesday,’ we take the 
order of Wichelhaus (168). 

On Tuesday, the 12th Nisan, was the supper at Bethany in the 
house of Simon. On Wednesday morning, Judas made his bargain 
with the priests, and in the evening was the supper of the feet washing 
in Bethany or its neighborhood. On the next afternoon, Thursday, 
the 14th Nisan, was the paschal supper. All recorded in John after 
this supper (xiii. 12 to xiv. 31) was before He went to Jerusalem, a 
part on Wednesday evening and a part on the Thursday forenoon fol- 
lowing. If not the paschal supper, but one on the Tuesday or 
Wednesday evening preceding, the accounts of the Synoptists and of 
John cannot conflict. 

Upon the other hand, it is said that this supper was the paschal 
supper, and so to be identified with that of the Synoptists, upon the 
following grounds: First, Through the designation of Judas by the 
Lord as he that should betray Him. (Compare John xiii. 21-30. with 
Matt. xxvi. 21-25, Mark xiv. 18-21, Luke xxii. 21-23.) Second, 
Through the prophecy that Peter should thrice deny Him, and of the 
crowing of the cock. (Compare John xiii. 38 with Matt. xxvi. 34, 
Luke xxii. 84.) Third, Through the connection between the Lord’s 
words recorded in John, chapters xiv., xv., xvi., showing that they 
were all spoken at once. Fourth, Through the statement (Luke 
xxii. 24) that at the paschal supper there was a strife among them 
who should be accounted greatest, which serves to explain His 
conduct in washing His disciples’ feet. (Compare John xiii. 13-17.) 
It is impossible in our limited space to examine these points in 
detail; some of them will meet us later. But most modern harmonists 
and commentators find the points of similarity more marked than 
those of difference, and so identify the supper of John with that of 
the Synoptists.2 But a few of them affirm that a discrepancy exists 
as to the time, and that one of the accounts must be inerror. This 
point therefore demands our attention. 

Time of the supperin John. Assuming that John and the Synopt- 


1 So Bengel, Krafft, Wichelhaus, Rdpe. See Bynaeus, De Morte Jesu Christi, 
1. 586, for an elaborate defense of this view. 

2 Tholuck, Greswell, Alford, Meyer, Tischendorf, Robinson, Friedlieb, Luthardt, 
Edersheim, Gardiner, and others. 





4 
7 
: 
4 
: 


Part VIL} TIME OF THE SUPPER IN JOHN. 465 


ists refer to the same supper, and having already seen that the latter 
put it on the evening following the 14th Nisan, we ask what note of 
time does John give us? He says only that it was ‘‘ before the feast 
of the passover.” But to what does this mark of time refer? Our 
answer must depend upon the relation in which verse 1 stands to the 
verses following. That it forms a sentence complete in itself, and 
grammatically independent upon what follows, is generally admitted.* 
If so, the words, ‘‘before the feast of the passover,” must qualify 
either the main or one of the subordinate propositions. The main 
proposition is that *‘ Jesus loved his own to the end, to the end of His 
life”; or, as some render it, ‘‘ perfectly,” or to ‘‘the uttermost.” But 
clearly the Evangelist did not mean to say merely that Jesus before the 
feast of the passover loved His own to the end of His life, or that He 
then loved them perfectly. Although the sentence may be grammati- 
cally complete, yet all feel that the statement isincomplete. Love being 
a permanent feeling in His heart, we need not be told that He loved 
His disciples to the end; much less can we connect it with the note 
of time, ‘‘ before the passover.” Interpreters, therefore, understand 
love here not of the feeling in itself, but as manifested in some act or 
event of which a definite time may be predicated ; and that this act was 
in the mind of the Evangelist. Accordingly, Meyer speaks of the mani- 
festation of this love: ‘* He loved, and gave to His own the closing 
proof of love.” In like manner Godet: ‘‘ He perfectly testified to 
them all His love.” But there is in this first verse no mention of any 
such act; in the following verse there is mention of a supper, and of 
His act in the washing of the apostles’ feet. 

Let us, however, admit that this is the meaning of the Evangelist, 
and read: ‘‘ Before the feast of the passover, Jesus gave the last proof 
of His love,” or ‘‘ perfectly testified His love,” ‘‘by washing the 
disciples’ feet at a supper.” It is said that this supper, thus described 
as being before the feast of the passover, cannot have been the paschal 
supper, but must have been at least one day earlier. 

But there are others who take the same view of the relation of the 
note of time, and yet reach an opposite conclusion. They take ‘‘ before 
the feast of the passover ” as an indefinite expression which may denote 
a longer or shorter interval, the Greek preposition — 76 — being in this 
respect like the preposition ‘‘ before.” As we use this of events which 
may immediately follow, in current expressions like these — before 
dinner, before sunset — when a very few moments may intervene; so 
“before the passover” may mean that the act spoken of took 


1 Meyer, Lange, Robinson, Alford, Tischendorf, W. and H., R. V.; but contra, 
Bleek, Beitriige, 126, DeWette, in his Translation, Ebrard. 


20* 


466 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. © [Part VIL 


place at a very brief interval before the paschal supper. (See Luke 
xi. 37; Baumlein, in loco.) In this way it is understood by Luthardt, 
who contrasts (xii. 1) ‘‘Six days before the passover” —a definite 
interval— with the present, ‘‘now before the feast” — an indefinite 
interval—and explains the last as meaning, ‘‘ now that the feast 
had come,” or was about to begin. (So Stier: ‘‘ was immediately 
before.”) In this view of the matter the supper of the feet-washing 
was the paschal supper, the washing of the feet being introductory. 

But to this there is the objection that the feet-washing was ‘‘ dur- 
ing supper” — the meal being actually in progress, —and therefore 
cannot be fairly said to have been before the feast (Wies., Beitrage, 
233). 

To avoid this objection, it may be said that John, in speaking of 
the Feast of the Passover, followed the usual Jewish usage in counting 
the first day of the feast, or the 15th Nisan, not from the sunset of the 
14th, but from the following morning (Levit. xxiii. 56). The feast 
beginning with the early daybreak of the 15th, the supper of the 
feet-washing on the evening before was in fact before the feast, and 
so might have been the paschal supper. (See Langen, 109; McClel., 
482.) 

To this it may be replied that it implies a distinction between 
sacred and secular time in the computation of the days, of which 
there is no sufficient proof. 

We have assumed hitherto that the words ‘‘before the pass- 
over” qualify the main proposition, ‘‘ Jesus loved His own to the 
end”; but they may qualify one of the two subordinate propositions 
or participial clauses—‘‘ Knowing that His hour was come that He 
should depart out of this world unto the Father,” and ‘‘ Having loved 
His own which were in the world.” If they qualify the first, the 
rendering is, ‘‘ Jesus, knowing before the feast of the passover that 
His hour was come,” etc. ; if the second, the rendering is, ‘‘ Jesus hav- 
ing loved His own before the feast of the passover” ete. Of these two 
qualifications the tirst is clearly to be preferred, the connection being 
closer and more obvious. The meaning of the verse is thus given by 
Norton in his translation: ‘‘ But Jesus, before the feast of the 
passover, knew that the hour had come for him to pass from the 
world to the Father, and having loved His own who were to remain 
in this world, He loved them to the last.” In a note he says: ‘‘It 
is a very forced interpretation to regard the words, ‘ before the feast 
of the passover,’ as intended to fix the date of what follows.” 

That either of the participial clauses should be qualified by the 
note of time issaid by Westcott to be ‘‘impossible.” But the grounds 
of this impossibility are not apparent, Supposing the Evangelist to 





Part VII.] THE TIME OF THE PASCHAL SUPPER. 467 


have had in his mind the paschal supper, now near at hand, his state- 
ment is clear and consistent; and we find a sufficient reason for the 
note of time. The Lord’s knowledge of the future determined His 
action. Knowing before the feast that He should die at the feast, He 
would, before He left the world, show forth His love to His own; 
and the paschal supper gave Him the last opportunity to do this, for 
immediately after this they were all scattered. It is as if a man, 
knowing that a session of a court where he is to be tried for his 
life is near, should assemble his friends and make an address to 
them. The exact hour when the Lord came to this knowledge is 
unimportant, but the foreknowledge is an essential condition of His 
action. This interpretation is in perfect harmony with the whole 
narrative. Before Jesus left Galilee He announced His departure as 
at hand (Matt. xvii. 22), and again after He left Ephraim (xx. 17). 
Two days before the feast He repeated that at the Passover He should 
be betrayed (Matt. xxvi. 2). And now the feast had come, and with 
it ‘‘ His hour.” He, knowing all this, gives at this introductory 
supper of the feast a new and last proof of the love with which He 
had loved them. With the full knowledge that the hour of His 
arrest and death is come, and that He no more should thus meet 
His disciples, He shows them in the most expressive way how great 
and unchangeable His affection for them. In this way the abrupt 
and incidental mention of the supper (verse 2) is readily explained; 
and that it was the paschal supper follows from the whole connection 
of the thought. 

If, however, we connect the clause, ‘‘ before the feast of the pass- 
over,” with ‘‘ having loved,” the meaning is, Jesus, that having loved 
His own down to this time, or to the passover which is now come, 
and knowing that the hour of His death is at hand, continues to 
love them, even to the end, and now gives a fresh proof of it at the 
paschal supper. Here, as before, it is implied that this supper at 
the beginning of the feast is the last opportunity He would have 
of manifesting His love. In this construction the antithesis be- 
tween ‘‘before the feast” and ‘‘to the end,” is most clearly 
brought out. The love which He had felt to His own before the 
feast continued ardent to the end, and was shown in the act of wash- 
ing their feet. Still, the other participial connection is to be pre- 
ferred.* 

We conclude, then, that from the note of time ‘‘before the feast 
f the passover,” nothing definite in regard to the time of the sup- 
per can be determined. Supposing all between verses 1 and 4 to be 


1 See Wieseler, Syn., 379; Beitriige, 231; Tholuck, in doco; Rob., Har., 249. 


468 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


striken out, and the statement to read: ‘‘ Now before the feast of 
the passover . . . . Heriseth from supper, and laid aside His 
garments,” it would still remain probable that the paschal supper is 
meant. The presumption is very strong that this meal, thus incident- 
ally mentioned, must have been that so prominently and inseparably 
associated with the feast. 

An additional proof that this was not the paschal supper, but one 
a day earlier, is found by many! in the fact mentioned (John xiii. 29), 
that none of the disciples knew what the Lord had said to Judas at 
the table, but some of them supposed He had told him to buy what 
was necessary for the feast, or to give something to the poor. It is 
said, if the disciples were now eating the feast no one could have 
thought that Judas went out for this purpose. Hence it follows that 
this supper was previous to the beginning of the feast, and that all 
the preparations were yet to be made. But this inference is not well 
grounded ; it depends upon the determination of the time in verse first. 
The feast, for the needs of which Judas was to buy, is not to be 
limited to the paschal supper, for it continued seven days, and em- 
braced various sacrifices and offerings other than the paschal lamb. 
It is not at all improbable that a master of a family, speaking at this 
first meal, should thus refer to the provision to be made for the 
further keeping of the feast. Judas, as the treasurer of the body of 
apostles, was in this case the person to make such provision. And 
the fact, that he went out immediately after the Lord had spoken to 
him, would naturally suggest to others that something necessary to 
the feast was to be at once procured; if it were to begin twenty-four 
hours later, there would be no need of haste. (The objection that 
nothing could be bought on a feast day, will be later examined.) 

A careful examination of this passage seems rather to prove that 
this was the paschal supper than to disprove it. The disciples heard 
the Lord say to Judas, ‘‘That thou doest do quickly.” He immedi- 
ately arises and goes out, and ‘‘it was night.” Supposing this to have 
been a supper on the night of the 13th Nisan, and a full day before 
the paschal supper, would they connect his departure with any prep- 
arations for the feast? The next day would give him abundant time 
to buy all that was necessary. Why hasten out at that hour of the 
night ? But if we suppose that this was the paschal supper, and that 
the next day, the 15th, was the first day of the feast, we can readily 
explain their conjectures as to the cause of Judas’s sudden departure. 
What he was to do must be done without delay. (So Stier, Luthardt, 
and others.) 


1 Meyer, Bleek, Alford, Godet, who does not, however, attach much importance 
to it. 


Part VII.] THE TIME OF THE PASCHAL SUPPER. 469 


The next passage in John, and that most relied on to prove that 
the Lord could not have eaten the paschal supper at the legal time, is 
found in xviii. 28: ‘‘ Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall 
of judgment, and it was early; and they themselves went not into the 
judgment hall lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the 
passover.” This, it is said, plainly proves that the Jews had not yet 
eaten the passover, and that the supper which Jesus had eaten on the 
previous evening could not have been the paschal supper as the Syn- 
optists seem to state.’ 

Two solutions of this difficulty are given: First, that those who 
would not go into the judgment hall, were those Scribes and Phari- 
sees who had been engaged during the night, while the other Jews 
were keeping the feast, in directing the proceedings against Jesus, 
and thus had had no time to partake of the paschal supper. Second, 
that John uses the expression, ‘‘eat the passover,” in its larger 
meaning, not referring to the paschal lamb, but to the offerings eaten 
on the second day of the feast. The former of these solutions has 
neyer found many defenders, though not in itself impossible. So 
great was the hate against Jesus, and so little scrupulous were His 
enemies, that we cannot doubt, that to compass His death they would 
have postponed for a time the paschal supper, or even have neglected 
it altogether. There are, however, other obvious difficulties, which 
this explanation does not fully meet. (This view is best stated by 
Fairbairn, ‘‘ Hermeneutical Manual,” 382 ff.) 

We must consider the second of these solutions. It is admitted, 
that as the Synoptists use the phrase ‘‘to eat the passover” — 
gayetv 7d rdoxa, —it always means to eat the paschal supper (Matt. 
xxvi. 17; Mark xiv. 12 and 14; Luke xxii.11and15). If John uses it 
in the same sense, then the paschal supper was eaten by the Jews on 
the evening of the day when Jesus was crucified, and He must have | 
anticipated it. But the usage of the Synoptists does not decide the 
usage of John. We must determine its meaning from the way in 
which he uses the phrase elsewhere, and from the general character of 
his writings. It has already been shown, that out of the nine times 
in which he uses the word rdoya, — passover — in six it is applied to 
the feast generally, and not to the paschal supper only. The mean- 
ing in the other three passages is in dispute. Only in the passage 
before us does the phrase ‘‘eat the passover” occur. The simple 
point is, does John here use it in its wider or narrower meaning? 

Some considerations, drawn from the character of John’s Gospel, 
as influenced by the period of time at which he wrote, will serve to 


1 Meyer, Bleek, Browne, Alford, Godet, Schiirer. 


470 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


show how this marked distinction in the use of terms between him 
and the Synoptists may be explained. John wrote toward the close 
of the century ’ and after the destruction of Jerusalem. To him the 
Jews were no more the holy people of God. Rejecting Jesus, and 
afterwards His apostles, they had themselves been rejected. Every- 
where he speaks of them distinctly as ‘‘the Jews,” formerly the 
Church of God, but now cut off, and as a body standing in a hostile 
attitude to Christ and to that new, universal Church, composed both 
of Jews and Gentiles, of which He was the Head.? Jewish institu- 
tions had in his eyes been emptied of their significance and value, 
since Christ, in whom all the law was fulfilled, had come. Hence, 
he speaks of them commonly as the institutions of a people between 
whom and himself was a broad line of distinction. Their purifica- 
tion is spoken of as that ‘‘ of the Jews”; the passover, as ‘‘a feast of 
the Jews”; the preparation, as ‘‘preparation of the Jews”; Nico- 
demus, as ‘‘a ruler of the Jews.” The Synoptists, on the other 
hand, writing before the total rejection of Judaism, and while it still 
stood side by side with Christianity as of divine authority and sanc- 
tity, show by their mode of allusion that no such line of distinction 
then existed. To them the Jewsare not asaliens, but still the chosen 
-people of God. 

Placing ourselves in the position of John, and remembering the 
position of those for whom he wrote, how few of them had any real 
knowledge of Jewish laws and traditions; we shall readily understand 
why he speaks in such general and indefinite terms of Jewish rites as 
of things now superseded. Since Jesus, the true Paschal Lamb, had 
been slain, the true paschal supper was kept only in the Christian 
Church. To Christians, he could say with Paul (i Cor. v. 7, 8), 
‘‘ Christ, our Passover, is sacrificed for us, therefore let us keep the 
feast.” The Jews in their passover had only the shell or shadow; 
the Church had the kernel or substance. Hence, it is not to be ex- 
pected that he would refer to any rites of the Jews at this feast with 
the care that marks the Synoptists. He does not distinguish, as do 
they, its several component parts, but speaks of it only in general 
terms as one of the Jewish feasts. There is not, in the other places 
in which he mentions the passover, any clear proof that he means to 
distinguish the paschal supper from the solemnities of the following 
days. Why, then, in the passage before us, are we forced to believe 
that the passover which the Jews were about to eat on the day of the 
crucifixion, was the paschal supper, and that only? Why may he not 


1 Meyer, about 80 A. D. 
2 See Meyer on John i. 19; Bleek, 247. 


aA 


Fart VIL] PASCHAL LAMB AND PEACE OFFERINGS. 471 


mean the subsequent sacrifices? Standing to the Jews in a position 
so unlike that of the Synoptists, it seems most arbitrary to assert that 
he must use language with precisely the same strictness, and that 
“*to eat the passover ’ must mean to eat the paschal lamb. 

As has been said, upon the first day of the feast or the 15th of Nisan 
thank offerings of the flock and herd were slain and eaten. There is 
certainly no intrinsic reason why John may not have meant these. 
But it is said in reply,’ that if the phrase “ to eat the passover” may 
be used of the other offerings inclusive of the paschal lamb, it can- 
not be exclusive of it. But this is by no means obvious. Passover, 
with John, is a term denoting the whole festival; and why, if the 
paschal supper was past, might he not employ it to designate the re- 
maining feasts? To affirm that he could not is mere affirmation. 
Norton,* referring to the oft-repeated remark that the term passover 
is never used ‘‘absolutely ” to denote the thank offerings considered 
apart from the paschal supper, observes: ‘- This remark has been 
repeatedly praised for its acuteness by Kuinoel and Strauss. But, in 
fact, it only implies a forgetfulness of a very common metonymy by 
which the name of a whole is given toa part. If, when the paschal 
festival were half over, it had been said that certain Jews desired to 
avoid pollution that they might keep the passover, every one per- 
ceives that the expression would be unobjectionable, though no one 
would think of applying the name passover ‘absolutely’ to the last 
three or four days of the festival.” Edersheim (ii. 568, note 1) ob- 
serves: ‘‘ No competent Jewish archzologist would care to deny that 
‘Pesach’ [xdcxa] may refer to the Chagigah.” 

The exact nature of the defilement to which the Jews would have 
been exposed by entering the judgment hall, does not appear; but 
that they were at this time very strict in regard to entering the 
dwellings of the uncircumcised and eating with them, is plain 
from the accounts of Peter (Acts x. 28 and xi. 3. See Lightfoot on 
Matt. xxiii. 17). In the law, defilements are mentioned which were 
only for a day and which could be cleansed by ablution (Lev. xv. 5 
~11 and xxii. 5-7). It is supposed by some that contact with the 
heathen was of this class, and that, therefore, if the day of the cruci- 
fixion had been the 14th Nisan, the Jews could still have cleansed 
themselves by evening and been ready to eat the pascha] supper. 

But it is said by Schirer, Festschrift, 24, that this defilement 
continued for seven days, and that it was therefore impossible for the 
Jews thus defiled to haye eaten the paschal supper. On the other 


\ Meyer and others, after Mosheim, Delitzsch in Riehm, 1143; Schiirer. 
2 Notes, ii. 466. 


472 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


hand it is affirmed by Bynaeus, Edersheim, and many, that entering a 
heathen house made one ceremonially unclean .only for the day, or 
till the evening. In this case, if the paschal supper had not been 
eaten by the Jews, but was still to be eaten, they would not have 
been prevented from eating it, since, although the lamb was killed 
in the afternoon, the supper was not served till after the sunset, or in 
the beginning of the next day. The Sanhedrists could not, therefore, 
on this ground have refused to enter the judgment hall on the morn- 
ing of the 14th. But if it was the morning of the 15th, during which 
day the thank offerings were sacrificed and eaten, they could not have 
partaken of them. Hence, it is inferred that the thank offerings, 
rather than the paschal supper, were meant, and that this day was the 
15th rather than the 14th." Much stress, however, in the present 
state of our knowledge of Jewish customs, cannot be laid upon this 
argument.’ 

This passage, then, affords no sufficient data for the final determi- 
nation of the question as to the time of the paschal supper. If any 
think that John could not have used the phrase ‘‘to eat the pass- 
over” in any other sense than the Synoptists used it, they must 
admit a chronological difference between him and them which we 
. find no satisfactory way to reconcile. But if, on the other hand, we 
find it not only possible, but also probable, that he should thus speak 
of the festival apart from the supper, the supposed difference dis- 
appears. 

The next important passage we find in xix. 14: ‘‘And it was the 
preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith 
unto the Jews, Behold your King.” A different punctuation of this 
passage has been proposed, making it to read thus: ‘‘ And it was the 
preparation. The hour of the passover was about the sixth.”? 
Though some plausible reasons may be given for this change, yet it 
involves considerable difficulties. We shall follow the generally 
received punctuation. 

Our first inquiry relates to the meaning of the term “‘ preparation” 
— rapacxevj. It occurs in the Gospel five times besides the text: 
Matt. xxvii. 62; Mark xv. 42; Luke xxiii. 54; John xix. 31; John 
xix. 42. In all these cases there is little doubt as to its meaning. It 
was, aS Mark explains it, ‘‘the day before the Sabbath” — mpocdp- 
farov — or the day in which preparation was made for the Sabbath. 
Such preparation, though not expressly prescribed in the law, was 


! So Bynaeus, iii. 13; Eders., ii. 567; Langen, Keil, and many. 
2 See Friedlieb, Arch., 102; Bleek, 118; Nebe, i. 397 ff. 
3 So Hofmann, followed by Lichtenstein, 359. See contra, Luthardt in loco. 


- 


—— 


Part VII] THE PREPARATION DAY. 473 


yet made necessary by the strictness of the commands respecting the 
Sabbath, which forbade all labor even to prepare food on that day. 
(Compare Exod. xvi. 5.) Hence, it became the habit of the Jews to 
observe the afternoon before from three o’clock, as a time of getting 
ready for the Sabbath which began at sunset.1 As they came more 
and more under bondage to that legal spirit which so characterized 
the Pharisees, and the rigor of the original Sabbath laws was aug- 
mented by burdensome additions, of which many examples are to be 
found in the Evangelists and in Josephus, this period of preparation 
became more and more important. Thus, by degrees, Friday, or the 
mpoca8Sarov, became known as the zapacxevj, or Preparation; as Sat- 
urday, the day of rest, was known as the Sabbath, all other days be- 
ing distinguished only as the first, second, third, etc. As the prep- 
aration was made in the afternoon preceding, or during that part of 
it which was known as ‘‘the evening,’ this term was generally 
applied to it in Hebrew and Chaldee: as by the Germans the day 
before the Sunday is called Sonnabend or Sun-evening. Thus the 
sixth day of the week received its current name from its peculiar rela- 
tions to the Sabbath; and rapacxevy became equivalent to Friday. 
As remarked by Westcott: ‘‘ Being the preparation for the weekly 
Sabbath, it was natural that it should become at last the proper 
name of the day.” 

From this origin of the term, and from the fact that it was gen- 
erally used to designate the sixth day of the week, and that it is so 
used both by the Synoptists and by John, we infer that, in the pas- 
sage before us it means the preparation day before the Sabbath, or 
Friday. As the feast of unleavened bread continued seven days, 
there would be in it one Sabbath, and so one preparation day, 
and to speak of the paraskeue of the passover week would sufficiently 
define it. 

In its larger meaning of ‘‘preparation,” the term might be used in 
connection with any of the feasts; and this leads us to ask as to prepa- 
ration days other than that for the week-Sabbath. That some prep- 
aration was necessary for the proper observance of every feast, even of 
those observed only for a day — as the new moon and pentecost — may 
be admitted, and probably some hours on the afternoon before may 
have been given to it; and especially before the feast Sabbaths, such 
as the first and last days of passover and of tabernacles. But there 
seems no good reason why in these cases the day preceding should be 
known as the day of preparation. The manner of celebrating the 
passover, indeed, made it necessary that the day before it began should 


1 Josephus, Antig., xvi. 6. 2, 


474 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


be spent in part in removing the leaven, and in killing the lamb; and 
in this sense the 14th Nisan was the preparation day for the 15th, 
and might be called the preparation day of the passover. But we 
find no proof that there were any such days of preparation for the 
feasts as for the weekly Sabbaths. The chief reason why such 
preparation was needed for the latter, was that on that day no 
food could be prepared; every kind of labor ceased as a mark of 
its greater dignity and sanctity. But preparation of food, and 
labor other than ‘‘ servile,” were permitted on the feast Sabbaths. 
Some have laid stress on the expression ‘‘ passover eve,” as showing 
that there was on the afternoon of the 14th Nisan a period thus des- 
ignated and set apart; but itis said by Robinson (Har.) that the expres- 
sion did not arise “till after the destruction of the temple and the 
consequent cessation of the regular and legal paschal meal, when, of 
course, the seven days of unleavened bread became the main festival.” 
To such a passover eve the term ‘‘ preparation day of the passover” 
could not apply; and as this feast came but once a year, there was no 
need that any special name should be given to the day preceding it. 
Thus we seem to reach the result that the term rapacxevh — prepa- 
ration — must mean the day before the Sabbath, or rpocd8Sarov, unless 
the context forbids it. It is so used by the Synoptists in all the places 
where itoccurs. Matt. xxvii. 62: ‘‘The next day, that followed the 
day of the preparation”; (R. V., ‘‘On the morrow which is the day 
after the preparation”); Mark xv. 42: ‘‘ Because it was the prepara- 
tion, that is, the day before the Sabbath”; Luke xxiii. 54: ** And that 
day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on” (R. Y.: ‘‘ the day 
of the preparation”). In all these cases the obvious meaning is, that 
the preparation was that for the Sabbath, and the day on which it was 
made was Friday. In the three cases in which it occurs in John, of 
two — xix. 31 and 42 — the same may be said; but it is claimed that 
in the third, the passage before us, the day of the preparation is 
expressly defined by the addition ‘‘of the passover,” and cannot, 
therefore, be the day of preparation for the weekly Sabbath, but 
must denote a day of preparation for the feast, and this day must 
have been the 14th Nisan, as the first day of the feast was the 15th. 
(So Meyer, Alford, Winer, Bleek.) It is said by Godet: ‘‘ Every 
Greek reader would necessarily think of the 14th Nisan as the day 
on which the passover supper was prepared.” But if it had become 
a technical term, a designation of Friday, and is so used by the Syn 
optists, and affirmed by them to have been the day of the crucifixion, 
it is very questionable whether John would here have used it in a 
different sense. It is remarked by Norton: ‘‘It would be very extra- 











q 
q 
: 
; 
. 


Part VII.] WHAT SABBATH A HIGH DAY? 475 


ordinary if, in speaking of the same day, Friday, he had happened to 
use the proper name of that day in a sense different from its common 
one, and from that in which it is used by the other Evangelists, and 
especially in a sense of which no other example has been adduced.” 

Some light may be gained by asking what was the object of the 
Evangelist in mentioning that it was ‘‘ the preparation of the pass- 
over ” when Jesus was brought before Pilate. Was it chronological 
simply? This is possible, but he seems to have had a higher purpose. 
It was the time when the Jews should have been engaged in making 
themselves ready for the holiest services of God in His temple; but 
their preparation consisted in putting His Son to the shameful death 
of the cross. The incongruity of their labors with the character of 
the day is thus brought into the clearest contrast.? 

The phrase ‘‘ preparation of the passover,” as used by John, does 
not then, we conclude, compel us to regard the day of the crucifixion 
as the day before the passover. It may be as Norton translates, ‘‘ the 
preparation day of the paschal week ”— the day before the Sabbath. 

Tn still another passage (John xix. 31) we read ‘‘ The Jews, there- 
fore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not re- 
main upon the cross on the Sabbath day (for that Sabbath day was a 
high day —yeyd\n), besought Pilate,” etc. The ground upon which 


_this Sabbath is designated as a high day, is supposed by many to be 


that the first day of the feast, or 15th Nisan, which was a feast Sab- 
bath (Exod. xii. 16), fell upon the weekly Sabbath, and thus it was a 
double Sabbath, and ‘‘a high day.” This, in itself considered, 
would bea sufficient and satisfactory explanation. But no weight 
can be attached to it as showing that this was actually the case. If 
the weekly Sabbath fell upon the 16th Nisan or the second day of 
the feast, a day distinguished from the other days as the time for the 
waving of the sheaf of first fruits, it would, with equal propriety, be 
called a high day.” As said by Robinson, ‘‘ It was a high day, first, 
because it was the Sabbath; second, it was the day when all the people 
presented themselves in the temple; third, it was the day when the 
sheaf of first fruits was offered.” There are 10 data fora positive 
decision of the question. In point of fact, this question is always 
decided according as the day of the crucifixion, for other reasons, is 
placed upon the 14th or 15th Nisan. Cudworth’s assertion, that 


1 An attempt has been made to show (Journal Sac. Lit., July, 1850) that tapacxevy 


‘means properly ‘* preparation time,”’ and comprises the interval between mid-day or the 


sixth hour and sunset or the twelfth. Translated according to this view the passage 
before us would read: ‘* For about the sixth hour the preparation time on passover day 
commenced.” This is hardly satisfactory, and has not found favor. 

2 So Wies., Rob., Licht., and many. 


476 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


“‘ oreat day,” in the Greek of the Hellenists, is used for the first or 
the last day of every feast, in which there was a holy convocation to 
the Lord, is not sustained by the passage to which he refers (Isa. i. 
13). Every week Sabbath as well as every feast Sabbath, there was 
a holy convocation (Ley. xxiii. 3). 

A new solution is proposed by Roth.! In place of reading ‘‘ The 
day of that Sabbath was a high day,” he would read ‘‘ That day of 
the week was the great day” (of the passoyer). This rests on the 
fact that ‘‘Sabbath” has two meanings: first, that of the rest-day of 
the week, the last or seventh; second, that of the week itself, as in 
Luke xviii. 12: ‘‘I fast twice in the week ’’ — éls rod caBBdrov. That 
day, ‘‘ the preparation” day, or Friday, was a high day because on it 
the Lord was crucified. This rendering, he thinks, would bring the 
passage into perfect harmony with the Synoptists. But there are here 
two questions, one, as to the meaning, the other, as to the differing 
uses of ‘‘ Sabbath” in the same verse, which must be answered; and 
there is also the enquiry as to the bearing of the parenthesis, ‘‘ the 
day of that Sabbath was a high day,” on the taking down of the bod- 
ies from the cross. On this point, Roth’s explanation does not help 
us. 

Having now examined the passages in John usually cited to show 
that he puts the crucifixion on the 14th Nisan, and not on the 15th, let 
us notice some objections to the latter date. They all depend upon 
one thing — the legal sacredness of a feast Sabbath and the supposed 
strictness with which the Jews in the Lord’s day observed it. Some- 
thing has already been said upon these points, but we must enter 
into more detail. 

1st. It is said that the Lord’s trial and execution could not have 
taken place on the 15th Nisan. According to Rabbinical precepts, 
the Sanhedrin could not have held a session, they could not have 
sent armed men to arrest Jesus; in fine, no judicial proceedings 
were lawful on that day. But several elements are here to be taken 
into account. We must ask how far the part which the Romans took 
in these transactions — the employment of the Roman soldiers to make 
the arrest and guard the prisoner, the trial before Pilate, the sentence 
of crucifixion, a Roman not a Jewish punishment, and its execution by 
the centurion — may have seemed to the rulers and people to make 
their participation in it subordinate, and to relieve them from respon- 
sibility. And we must ask, also, whether these later Rabbinical pre- 
cepts represent truly those then current and, if so, whether the Jews 
themselves strictly observed them. Bleek (Beitrige, 140) admits that 


1 “Die Zeit des letzen Abendmahles.” Freiburg, 1874 





Part VII.] TRIALS ON FEAST SABBATHS. 477 


criminals were often arrested on the Sabbath, and of course, if neces- 
sary, by menbearing arms. (See Winer, ii. 537.) That the Sanhedrin 
did sometimes hold its sessions on feast days and Sabbaths is proved 
from the Gemara, and also that on those days sentence of death 
could be passed and executed.’ That the execution of criminals was 
purposely reserved till the feasts, in order to produce a greater im- 
pression upon the people, appears from Maimonides, quoted by Ains- 
worth, on Deut. xvii. 13: ‘‘ They put him not to death in the judg- 
ment hall, that is, in his city, but carry him up to the high Synedrion 
in Jerusalem, and keep him until the feast, and strangle him at the 
feast, as it is said, ‘all the people shall hear and fear.’” It seems, 
also, to have been the custom of Pilate and of other governors who 
always went up to Jerusalem at the feasts, then to try and punish 
criminals; and thus it was that the two malefactors were crucified at 
the same time with Jesus. The crucifixion itself was performed, not 
by the Jews, but by Pilate and his soldiers. The following observa- 
tions of Tholuck seem well founded: ‘‘ We consider it, therefore, as 
certain, that judicial proceedings were also held on the feast days, 
perbaps under certain legal provisos, and that this very period, when 
large assemblages of the people came together, was, for the reason 
mentioned in Deut. xvii. 13, selected for the execution of notorious 
criminals.” 

The assertion that the Synoptists could not have put the Lord’s 
arrest, trial, and crucifixion on the first feast day because they must 
have known such acts to be unlawful, assumes the point to be proved. 
They say that certain things were done on acertain day; the objector 
replies, that the day was too sacred to be so desecrated, and, therefore, 
we must understand their words in some other way. If, indeed, we 
knew from other sources that no such things could have been done on 
this feast day, then we might say that the Synoptists, who cannot have 
been ignorant of Jewish customs, must be interpreted accordingly. 
But our knowledge of the actual observance of the day is in large 
part derived from the Evangelists themselves. The very fact, then, 
that these Evangelists do place the arrest, trial, and execution of 
Jesus upon a feast Sabbath, together with the judicial sessions of the 
Sanhedrin, and the subsequent purchase of spices and preparations 
for His embalming, gives the strongest presumptive proof that these 
were not incompatible with the character of the day. As against 
their statements, any Rabbinical precepts of a later age cannot be 
considered as decisive. 


1 See the citations in Lightfoot; Tholuck on John xiii. 1: Wieseler, Syn., 361 ff.; 
Keim, iii. 473. 


478 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


But even if we admit that, as a rule, the Jews did not arrest and 
try and execute criminals during the feasts, still the cases of those 
whose offenses were of a sacreligious character, as blasphemy and the 
like, may have been an exception. How great was the hate of the 
Pharisees and chief priests and elders to Jesus, as making Himself 
equal with God, we have already had abundant opportunities to 
observe. They stuck at nothing if they could but accomplish His 
death. Here, if ever, the end would in their eyes have justified the 
means, and when the long-desired opportunity of getting their dreaded 
enemy into their power came, they were not likely to be prevented 
from using it by any conscientious scruples respecting the sanctity of 
the day. That even the sanctity of the weekly Sabbath was no bar- 
rier against popular passion, appears from Luke iv. 16-30, where the 
inhabitants of Nazareth attempted to put Jesus to death on that day. 
So also the Jews at Jerusalem, at the Feast of Dedication, attempted 
first to stone Him, and afterward to arrest Him (John x. 22-39). 
Upon the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, ‘‘ the great day of the 
feast,” the Sanhedrin was in session, and officers were engaged in the 
attempt to take Him (John vii. 32-52). Upon the weekly Sabbath 
the chief priests and Pharisees did not hesitate to go to Pilate to take 
measures for sealing the sepulchre (Matt. xxvii. 62-66). 

2d. It is said that no one after the paschal supper could leave 
the city till the next morning, and that, therefore, Jesus, upon this 
evening, could not have gone to the garden of Gethsemane. But this 
was based upon the direction at its first appointment that ‘“‘no one 
should go out of his house till the morning.” (See Exod. xii. 22.) 
It seems evident, however, that this direction was not designed to be 
permanently observed any more than the command (verse 11) to eat 
it standing, with loins girded, shoes on the feet, and staff in the hand. 
We know, in point of fact, that the Jews in the Lord’s time did not 
observe these and other directions, regarding them as peculiar to its 
first institution, and in the nature of the case not to be repeated. 
Besides we have seen reason to believe that all the western slope of 
the Mount of Olives was regarded as a part of the holy city. 

3d. It is said that the preparation of spices and ointments for 
the Lord’s embalming upon the afternoon of the day of the crucifix- 
ion (Luke xxiii. 56, John xix. 38-40), implies that it was not a feast 
Sabbath. Here, also, all depends upon the strictness with which the 
Jews observed the feast Sabbaths. As we have seen, Maimonides 
mentions bathing and anointing as things that might be done on the 
feast days ; and, in the very nature of the case, every thing necessary 
to prepare the dead for burial would then be permitted. But in 








Part VII.] OBSERVANCE OF FEAST SABBATHS, 479 


cases of less urgency the same was true. That purchases could be 
made even on the Sabbath, is shown by Tholuck (on John xiii. 1), if 
the price was not agreed upon and no money paid. But with what- 
soever strictness the feast Sabbath was usually observed, we cannot 
question that both Joseph and Nicodemus would have regarded them- 
selves as fully warranted to perform, during its hours, the last offices 
of love to one who had taught in express words, and shown by His 
example, that He was Lord of the Sabbath. That Judas was sup- 
posed to have gone out from the supper (John xiii. 29) to make pur- 
chases or to give something to the poor, does not show that this was 
not on the evening after the 14th, but rather that it was. The 
evening was not a time when he could ordinarily have found the poor 
except in their own dwellings, and it is most improbable that he 
would this night have*sought them there. But if we remember that 
the poor gathered around the temple on the first day of the feast as 
early as the temple gates were opened for the offering of the peace 
and thank offering — the Chagigah — the eating of which onthe first 
day was a chief element of the feast, there was nothing strange in 
the supposition that the Lord sent him there to help the poor to buy 
something for their festive meal.! 

4th. It is said that the account given of Simon of Cyrene (Mark 
xv. 21, Luke xxiii. 26), who, coming out of the country at the time 
when Jesus was on His way to the place of crucifixion, was compelled 
to bear His cross, is additional evidence that this was not a feast Sab- 
bath, he having probably been at work. But if this were so, we have 
still to inquire respecting the nature of the work. Lightfoot supposes 
him to have come from the field bearing wood, which was lawful on 
a feast day. But it is not said that he had been out in the fields at 
work, nor that he had travelled any distance; and to come from the 
country into the city upon a feast Sabbath was no violation of any 
law. For aught that we know, he was a resident of Jerusalem who 
was casually without the wall, and was entering the gate when he 
met Jesus; or he may have been a pilgrim who had come up to the 
feast and was encamped without the city walls. 

5th. It is said that the Synoptists in their mention of the day of 
crucifixion, give no hint that it had a Sabbatical character. It is 
true that they do not do this in express terms, but it is involved in 
their statement that the Lord ate the passover at the legal time; 
the day, therefore, of His death was the 15th, or the first feast Sab- 
bath. That they designate it as the preparation day without mak- 
ing prominent its Sabbatical character, simply shows what great im- 


1 Joseph., Antiq., xviii. 2.2; Edersheim, ii. 508. 


480 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


portance they attached to the fact that the Lord died and was buried 
before the weekly Sabbath began. This was of far more moment to 
them as illustrating the relation of the Jewish Sabbath to the Chris- 
tian, than to make prominent the Sabbath character of the first day 
of the feast. 

In summing up our inquiries, we may distinguish the two points: 
1, the time of the paschal supper, 2, the time of the crucifixion. 

1. (a) We accept as proved that the statements of the Synoptists 
show the Lord to have kept the paschal supper at the time when the 
Jews in general kept it, 7. e. on the evening following the 14th Nisan, 
and in the same manner. All attempts to show that these statements 
are inconsistent with themselves, we must regard as inconclusive. 

(0) We find no clear evidence that John, writing much later, and, 
as we must believe, with knowledge of what the Synoptists had writ- 
ten, intended in his account to correct them, and to put the supper on 
another and earlier day. If he did so intend, he would have repre- 
sented the supper of the feet-washing as not a paschal supper, but as 
held before the legal time, and also as identical with theirs. It is 
claimed that he does represent it as not a paschal supper by the men- 
tion of the time, and by the absence in his account of all that indi- 
cates apaschal supper. But, admitting that it was not, does he iden- 
tify his supper with that of the Synoptists? If not identical, he does 
not correct the Synoptists as they refer to a different event. 

Let us assume that the supper in John was not the paschal sup- 
per, and that it was identical with that of the Synoptists; it must 
have been either an anticipatory supper or an ordinary meal. We 
find no good ground to believe that the Lord would have observed 
an anticipatory supper, whether eaten with a lamb or without, not 
only because of its illegality both as to time and manner, but also be- 
cause of an element of unreality—a seeming observance — wholly 
foreign to Him who came to keep the law, and to fulfill all righteous- 
ness. We may rather believe that He observed no quasi-paschal 
supper, but met the apostles at an ordinary meal. In this case, how- 
ever, why go to Jerusalem at all since this meal might have been at 
Bethany? And why do the Synoptists affirm so clearly that his mes- 
sengers were sent to prepare, and did prepare the passover? And 
as it is admitted that the Lord instituted His supper in connec- 
tion with a supper preceding it, if this was an ordinary meal, he must 
have instituted His supper in the absence of all those typical ele- 
ments that gave to the paschal supper its significance; a view in itself 
incredible, and directly contradicted by the Synoptical accounts. 

2. (a) We find no clear evidence that John intended to correct the 


a 


Part VII.] EVENTS AT THE PASCHAL SUPPER. 481 


Synoptists as to the day of the crucifixion. The argument derived 
from the fear of defilement on the part of the Jews, and from their 
desire to eat the passover (John xviii. 28), depends upon the meaning 
of a word which confessedly is used with large latitude, and its sig- 
nificance here is very uncertain. The point is one that must be deter- 
mined rather on historical than on grammatical grounds, and we 
seem to find it used in the large and indefinite sense which would nat- 
urally follow from John’s Christian position, and the later date of his 
gospel. Theargument from the phrase, ‘‘ preparation of the pass- 
over” (John xix. 14), is of a similar kind. 

(6) We find no sufficient proof that the first feast day, the 15th 
Nisan, was held so sacred by the Jews that they would not have 
arrested and tried the Lord on that day, and the more readily that 
the chief responsibility and entire execution vested in the Roman 
governor. 

(ec) But if generally strictly keeping it, we can easily believe that 
the rulers would not have counted it a work unworthy of a holy day, 
to arrest and condemn one who blasphemously asserted Himself to 
be their Messiah, and more, to be the Son of God; and whose accept- 
ance by the people would be the overthrow of the city and temple, 
and the destruction of the nation. To destroy such a man, and to 
avoid so great danger, would justify a transgression of the feast laws. 

Among the more important recent discussions of the questions con- 
nected with this last passover, are those of Wieseler, Beitrdge, 230 ff. ; 
Langen, Die letzten Lebenstage Jesu, 50 ff.; Farrar, Life of Christ, 
excursus X; Edersheim, Temple Service, appendix; Keim, Geschichte 
Jesu, iii. 460 ff.; McClellan, Harmony, 473 ff.; the monographs of 
Schirer, Roth, Répe, and others; the articles in the Bible Diction- 
aries, of which may be mentioned that of Ginsberg in Alexander’s 
Kitto Cyclopedia, and that of Delitzsch in Riehm’s Handworterbuch. 


EVENING FOLLOWING THURSDAY, 14TH NISAN, BEGINNING 
oF 15TH Nisan, 7TH APRIL. 


As the disciples are about to take their places at the LUKE xxii. 24-30. 
table, Jesus observes a strife among them for precedency 
and seats of honor. To rebuke them, Hearises and girds Jou xiii. 1-20. 
Himself, and proceeds to wash their feet. Afterward, LuKE xxii. 15-18. 
while they are eating, He declares that one of them will Marv. xxyi. 21-24, 
betray Him. The declaration creates great excitement Mark xiv. 18-21. 
among the apostles, and they begin to ask anxiously, Isit LUKE xxii. 21-23. 
I? The Lord describes the traitor as ene that is eating JouN xiii. 21, 22. 
with Him, but without designating him further. Peter JoHN xiii. 23-35, 
makes a sign to John to ask Him whoit is, which he does, 

21 


482 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


and Jesus gives him privately a sign; and dipping the 

sop, gives it to Judas, who asks, is it 1? Jesus answers MATT, xxvi. 25. 
him affirmatively, and he immediately goes out, tothesur- Marr. xxvi. 26-29. 
prise of those apostles who do not understand the cause. Mark xiy. 22-25. 
After the departure of Judas, the Lord proceeds to the LuKE xxii. 19, 20. 
institution of the eucharistic supper. 


Assuming, upon grounds already stated, that John and the 
Synoptists both refer to the same supper, and that the paschal 
supper, we may now attempt to arrange its events in a chrono- 
logical order. This is very difficult, as no one of the Evangelists 
has so given them. There are four points that especially de- 
mand our attention: The strife for precedency ; the washing of 
the apostles’ feet ; the announcement of Judas’ treachery and 
his departure; and the institution of the Lord’s supper. Let us 
take the order of Luke (xxii. 14 ff.) as the fullest in its details. 

1. The Lord and the Twelve sit down to the paschal sup 
per. 2. The cup is divided among them, and the supper 
follows, presumably in the accustomed order. 3. Institution of 
the Lord’s supper. 4. Announcement of Judas’ treachery. 5. 
Strife for precedence. John alone mentions two events addi- 
tional, the feet washing and the departure of Judas, but he 
omits the institution of the Lord’s supper which the Synoptists 
have. All have in common the announcement of Judas’ treach- 
ery, but Luke alone the strife for precedence. 


The feet washing. We may best examine the matter of order, if we 
begin with the feet washing (John xiii. 2 ff.); at what period of the 
supper is it to be placed? and the first inquiry must be as to the text. 
In the Textus R. it is delrvov yevouévov, translated ‘‘supper being 
ended”; accepting this, the feet washing was after the supper. 
(Others translate it, ‘‘ during supper,” Norton; ‘‘ while they were at 
supper,” Campbell; ‘‘ supper being prepared,” or ‘‘ going on,” Alford.) 
But Tisch. and W. and H. read Seérvou y.vouévov, in R. V.: ‘during 
supper;” in Meyer, ‘‘ while it is becoming supper time,” 4. e., they 
had reclined at the table, but the supper had not yet begun. (So 
Luthardt: ‘‘ They were on the point of beginning the meal.”) 

The feet washing may then be put at the beginning of the supper. 
Was this an act customary on grounds of cleanliness? It seems 
not to have been uncommon at feasts, but was not always prac- 
ticed (Luke vii. 44). The references to the Old Testament show only 
that it was customary to wash the feet after a journey, and not 





Part VII.] WASHING OF THE APOSTLES FEET. 483 


always before a meal. But when this was done, it was by the ministry 
of slaves or servants. It is said by Thomson (i. 183), on the ground 
of oriental usage, that it was at the close of the meal, it being cus- 
tomary to wash the hands and mouth after eating. ‘‘ The pitcher and 
ewer are always brought, and the servant with a napkin over his 
shoulder, pours water on your hands. Ifthere is no servant, they per- 
form this office forone another.” Butin this case the Lord must have 
washed both hands and feet; it is, however, plain from Peter’s words 
(verse 9) that He washed their feet only. Some, assuming that it was 
customary, think that the Lord acted as the servant because no one of 
the apostles was willing to render this service to the rest, no servant 
beiny present to do it. (So Bengel, Ebrard, Nebe, Lindsay.) But 
we may rather regard it as unusual, and having now a special cause. 
All do not, however, put it at the beginning of the meal; some, as 
Langen, put it at the end of the paschal supper and before the insti- 
tution of the Lord’s supper; and others still later. 

It does not appear with which of the apostles the Lord began the 
feet washing. According to Chrysostom, it was Judas; to Augustine, 
Peter; and with him agree the Roman Catholic commentators and 
many Protestants. “If He did observe any order,” says Lightfoot, 
“He began with Peter who sat in the next place immediately to Him- 
self.” This commentator supposes that He washed only the feet of 
Peter, James, and John, thus avoiding the washing of Judas. Bengel 
infers from verse 6: ‘‘So He cometh to Simon Peter,” that Peter 
was not the first. (So Luthardt.) It seems evident from verses 5 and 
6, that He did not go first to Peter, and from verses 10 and 11 that 
the feet of Judas were washed, for had the Lord not done this, the 
neglect would at once have called attention to him. According to 
Greswell, He began with Peter and ended with Judas. 

Strife for precedence. We may thus place the feet washing at the 
beginning of the supper, and find the special occasion for it in the 
strife of the apostles for precedence mentioned by Luke (xxii. 24): 
“And there was also a strife among them, which of them should 
be accounted the greatest.” This strife would come most naturally 
at the beginning of the supper, and find its cause in the desire to be 
as near to the Lord as possible, the present degree of nearness to the 
King being an index of rank in the future Messianic kingdom. It 
is scarce possible that at a later period, after the discovery of the 
treason of Judas, and with the solemn impression which the Lord’s 
words respecting his guilt and punishment must have made upon 
them, and after they had eaten His sacred supper, any such strife 
could have occurred. 


484 LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


If then we combine the two accounts of Luke and John, we find 
a consistent narrative. The Lord noting this strife as they were 
about to begin the meal, first rebukes the apostles in words, and 
then proceeds to teach them in a symbolic manner that their real 
greatness was in their humility, by girding Himself and proceeding 
to wash their feet —the duty of a servant. Both events are thus 
internally connected together, and both are to be placed at the be- 
ginning of the supper. 

Announcement of Judas’s treashery. The third point is the announce- 
ment by the Lord of the treachery of Judas, and the departure of the 
traitor. But before considering this, it is necessary to recall to mind 
the order of the paschal supper,' and to have before us the probable 
positions of Peter, John, and Judas at the table. 

(a) The supper opens with a glass of wine mingled with water, 
preceded by a blessing, and followed by washing of the hands. 2. 
Giving of thanks and eating of the bitter herbs. 3. Bringing in of 
the unleavened bread, the sauce, the lamb, and the flesh of the cha- 
gigah, and thank offerings. 4. Benediction. The bitter herbs 
dipped in the sauce are eaten. 5. The second cup is mixed, and the 
father explains to his children the origin of the feast. 6. The first 
part of the Hallel (Psalms ecxiii. and cxiv.) is sung, prayer offered, 
and the second cup drunk. 7. The father washes his hands, takes 
two loaves of bread, breaks one and blesses it, takes a piece and 
wrapping it in the bitter herbs, dips it in the sauce and eats it with 
thanksgiving. Giving thanks, he then eats of the chagigah, and 
again giving thanks, eats of the lamb. 8. The meal continues, each 
eating what he pleases, but eating last of the lamb. After this is 
consumed, no more is eaten. 9. He washes his hands and takes 
the third cup after giving thanks. 10. The second part of the Hallel 
(Psalms cxv.-cxviii.) is sung. 11. The fourth cup is taken, and 
sometimes a fifth. 12. The supper concludes with singing the great 
Hallel (Psalms cxx.-cxxvii.) 

Upon several of these points there is dispute among the Jewish 
writers, but the order as here given is substantially according to the 
paschal ritual of the Talmudists. Whether this order was generally 
foilowed in our Saviour’s time is very doubtful; nor if so, is it cer- 
tain that He strictly followed it. 

(b) The data to determine the positions of the apostles at the table 
are very scanty. As the Lord had often eaten with the Twelve, we 
may presume that there had been some order which they followed in 


1 For this, see Lightfoot and Meyer on Matt. xxvi. 26; Friedlieb, Arch., 54; 
Langen, 148; Weichel., 247; Eders., The Temple and its Services, ch. vi. 


es 


Part VII.] POSITIONS AT TABLE. 485 


taking their places; whether hitherto Peter had had the place of honor 
nearest the Lord and John next to him, we cannot tell. This is 
said by Langen, who affirms that no one would think of disputing 
Peter’s place as the first in rank. It is said by Nebe that the Lord at 
this time gave John the highest place, and that this occasioned the 
strife; but this is not warranted by anything in the narrative. We 
know only that John was nearest the Lord (xiii. 23). As to the posi- 
tion of Judas we have only the datum in Matt. xxvi. 23: ‘‘ He that 
dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me”; and 
the giving of the sop to him (John xili. 26), indicating that he was 
not far from the Lord. It is said by Edersheim (ii. 493) that ‘‘he 
claimed and obtained the chief seat at the table next the Lord.” (Se 
Keil.) As this view of the positions of the chief actors is peculiar 
we give his diagram. 





A. The table. BB. The headsof the divans on which the guests 
reclined. The chief place, that occupied by the Lord. The next 
place in honor, that occupied by Judas on the left of the Lord; the 
lowest of all, that occupied by Peter. The lowest place was volunta- 
rily taken by Peter, who felt keenly the Lord’s rebuke of this strife 
for precedence. 

We give also a diagram of a Roman ¢riclinivm from Orelli’s Hor- 
ace, excursus to Sat. II. 8, furnished by Dr. Hart, who also suggests 
the places occupied by the Lord and John and Judas, 


436 - HE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


Mevivus Lectus. 





* 


[F< al 
+ 
Ins Lectus. t MENsA. Summus Lectrus. 


* Locus consularis, for the chief guest. + Host’s seat; here the 
the Lord sat, St. John at {, Judas at *.? 

We may now return to the announcement by the Lord of the 
treachery of Judas, and enquire at what point in the meal it is to be 
put. 

Judas pointed out as the traitor. The first allusion to him was 
while washing the feet of Peter (John xiii.): ‘‘ Ye are clean, but not 
all.” Again, after the washing the Lord said: “I speak not of you 
all. . . . He that eateth bread with me hath lift up his heel 
- against me” (see Ps. xli. 9). This prophecy was now finding its ful- 
fillment, in one sitting and eating at the same table with Him. But 
these intimations were too obscure to make any special impression upon 
their minds, and He therefore, soon after declares in plain words that 
one of them should betray Him. (All the Evangelists mention this; 
Luke with a little difference of phraseology, and John with the addi- 
tional circumstance that ‘‘ He was troubled in spirit and testified.”) 
This distinct utterance at once attracts their deep attention, and they 
all begin to ask Him, ‘‘ Lord, is it I?” In reply He says (Matt. and 
Mark), it is one of the Twelve who dippeth his hand with me in the 
dish. . . . (The R. V. reads in Matt. xxvi. 23: ‘‘he that dipped 
his hand.”) In this designation of the traitor He does not seem to 
refer to any present act of eating, but to the fact that he was sitting 
and partaking with Him at the same table. From these words, there- 
fore, the apostles could not tell who of them was meant. The same 
indefiniteness of expression is found in Luke: ‘‘ Behold, the hand of 


1 Pieritz: The Gospels from the Rabbinical Point of View, London, 1878 (15), 
denies that there is reason to believe that the Jews at this time followed the Roman mode 
of reclining at table. He supposes that the Lord and the apostles sat in a circle around 
a table on which was only one dish, into which all dipped. But against this the language 
of the Evangelists is decisive: Mark xiv. 18, Matt. xxvi. 20, in both cases, avaxeimat 
Luke xxii. 14, John xiii. 12, avarintw. See T. G. Lex., sub vocibus; Light. on Matt. xxvi. 
20. Sepp (vi. 65) thinks Peter to have been on the right of Jesus, and John on his left. 
He also gives the positions of al] the rest, which is, of course, only conjecture. 


= — a 


Part VII.] THE POINTING OUT OF JUDAS. 487 


him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.” Some, however, 
find in the language of Mark xiv. 20, ‘‘ One of the Twelve that dippeth 
with me in the dish,” a specific designation of Judas. ‘‘ The express- 
ion seems to describe the traitor as particularly near to Christ at 
table, and in some peculiar sense partaking with Him.”! This is not 
likely unless there was more than one dish into which they dipped 
their morsels. It is possible that Judas may have been sitting near 
to Jesus, and both have been dipping at the time in the same dish; 
but, if so, it is plain that the others did not yet know who was meant. 

At this point, when all doubtless had suspended eating, and their 
anxiety was at its height, and all were looking upon one another 
doubting of whom He spake, and asking, Is it I? Peter beckons to 
John to ask Him who it was (John xiii. 24).2, To John’s question, 
‘‘Lord, who is it?” which, probably, from his position as lying on 
Jesus’ breast, was unheard by the others, He replied, ‘‘ He it is to 
whom I shall give asop when I have dipped it.” * It is not probable 
that this reply was heard by any one but John. Taking a piece of 
the bread and dipping it in the broth, He gives it to Judas, and thus 
he is revealed as the traitor to John, but to none of the others. It 
may be that, on receiving the sop, Judas saw that his treachery was 
known not only to Jesus but also to John; and, knowing that all 
longer concealment is useless, he now asks as the rest had done, but 
mockingly, ‘‘ Lord, is it 1?” (Matt. xxvi. 25). To his question the 
Lord replies, ‘‘ Thou hast said,” or in other words, ‘‘ Thou art the 
man.” 

There is some difficulty in determining when Judas asked this 
question and the Lord replied, from the fact that John does not men- 
tion the question of Judas, ‘‘ Lord, is it I?” and that when the former 
went out, none of the apostles seem to have known the cause of his 
departure (John xiii. 28, 29). Grotius supposes it to have been asked 
before Peter beckoned to John, the Lord’s reply not being heard by 
him; and Friedlieb puts it before the sign of the sop given to John. 
In the general agitation and confusion the Lord’s reply was unno- 
ticed. According to Ebrard (518), the Lord answered John’s ques- 
tion, ‘‘ Who is it?” openly, so that all knew who was meant, and 
then Judas asked, ‘‘Is it 1?” According to some, as Stier, all heard 


1 Alexander, in loco ; Meyer. 

2 The text, as given by Tischendorf, W. and H., makes the question to have been 
addressed by Peter to John. R. Y.: ‘‘Simon Peter therefore beckoneth to him and saith 
to him, Tell us who it is of whom He speaketh.’ Peter first beckons to John to gain 
his attention, and then asks him, supposing that he may know, but he, being ignorant, 
asks Jesus. 

3 Tischendorf and W. and H. read Bayw. R. V.; ‘Heit is, for whom! shall dip 
the gop, and giveit him.” 


488 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL. 


the question of Judas, but none specially marked it, as all had asked 
the same, and no suspicion seems to have attached to him in particu- 
lar. The difficulty, however, is not with the question of Judas, which 
might easily have passed unnoticed, but with the Lord’s reply, 
which, if heard, was too direct to have been misunderstood. If 
Judas had been thus openly designated as a traitor, how could the 
other apostles suppose that he was sent out to execute some official 
commission? Some, therefore, suppose that both question and reply 
were in a whisper or very low tone of voice, and inaudible to the 
others.' This is possible if Judas was very near the Lord, perhaps 
upon one side as John was upon the other, as some have inferred 
from Mark xiv. 18. In this case what was said might easily have 
escaped the ears of the other apostles ; and it seems that Judas must 
have been near Him when he received the sop. According to some, 
both question and reply were not by words, but by signs. Others 
still suppose that both were heard and understood by all present, but 
that the apostles, looking forward to the betrayal as not imminent, did 
not imagine that His words, spoken immediately after, ‘‘ That thou 
doest, do quickly ” (John xiii. 27-29), had any reference to the exe- 
cution of his treacherous project. This is not impossible but im- 
* probable. 

At what point during the supper Judas went out is uncertain, and 
we can best determine it when we have inquired as to the time when 
the Lord instituted His supper. 

Institution of the Lord’s supper. Tt is most likely that the Lord 
observed the usual paschal ritual to the end, and then took of the 
remaining bread and wine for His institution; and this is the more 
general opinion. But those who deny that this was the true paschal 
supper and regard it as anticipatory or commemorative, think that He 
did not follow this ritual, but blended the two, putting some inter- 
val of time between the blessing of the sacramental bread and of the 
cup; the former being during the feast and the latter after it. (So 
Greswell; Godet says that ‘‘ He transformed, as He went along, the 
Jewish supper in such a way as to convert it into the sacred supper.”’) 
But assuming that this was the true paschal supper, let us examine 
the Synoptical accounts. 

Order of the supper. The order may be most clearly seen in its re- 
lation to the evangelical narratives, if we consider it in connection 
with the several cups of wine. ‘‘ Four cups of wine,” says Lightfoot, 
‘* were to be drank upby every one.” The first was introductory, with 


1 So Langen, Stroud, Eders.; Farrar thinks that Peter and John heard; Godet 
that the act of giving the sop to Judas was the reply to his question, and that Matthew 
has translated the act into words, 


Part Vil.) ORDER OF PASCHAL SUPPER. 489 


thanksgiving. This was followed by the bringing in of the bitter herbs 
and partial eating of them; the bringing in of the bread, the sauce, the 
lamb, and the chagigah; the explanation of the meaning of the feast, 
and the first part of the Hallel. The second cup which was followed 
by the eating of the unleavened bread, of the chagigah, and of the lamb. 
The third cup, commonly called the cup of blessing, and after it, the 
second part of the Hallel was sung. The fourth cup was drunk. 
If the great Hallel was sung, there was afifth cup. All that took 
place between the first and second cups was introductory to the meal. 
The feast proper began with the second cup and ended with the 
third. Except the partial eating of the bitter herbs, nothing was 
eaten before the second, and nothing at all was eaten after the third. 
The singing of the second part of the Hallel, and the fourth cup, 
generally closed the feast. 

If we now turn to the Evangelists, we find that Luke only (xxii. 
17, 20) mentions two cups of wine. To which of the four custom- 
ary cups of the paschal supper shall these be referred? Many iden- 
tify the first of Luke with the first of the supper.’ But against this 
an argument is found in the Lord’s words (verses 16 and 18), that He 
would no more eat or drink of the passover till the kingdom of God 
should come, which seem to imply that He had already eaten and 
drunken, and that the paschal supper was over. The words, how- 
ever, may mean no more than that He would partake of no passover 
after the present. 

Some, however, make the first cup of Luke to have been the third 
of the paschal supper.?_ The supper was then, so far as eating the 
passover was concerned, fully over; and His words, ‘‘ With desire 
have I desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer,” refer to 
His own supper which He was about to establish. Bucher (742) 
refers these words in Luke (verses 15-18) to the paschal supper just 
ended; but Matt. xxvi. 29 and Mark xiv. 25, to the eucharistic supper. 

The second cup of Luke (verse 20) was that ‘‘after supper” (see 
also 1 Cor. xi. 25), and is the same as that mentioned by Matt. xxvi. 27 
and Mark xiv. 23. To which of the four cups of the supper does this 
correspond? Many refer it to the third.* Of thiscup, Brown remarks: 
“Tt was emphatically called ‘the cup of blessing,’ because, while it 
stood before them, the president did what we commonly do at the 
end of a feast — he returned thanks to the Father of all for every 
temporal and spiritual blessing, but especially that of the passover.” 
To this some suppose St. Paul to refer (1 Cor. x. 16): ‘‘ The cup of 
blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of 


\ So Robinson, Stier, Alford, Godet. 2 Brown, Antiq., 465. 
8 Lightfoot, Lange, Rob., Licht. 
21° 


490 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD, [Part VIL 


Christ?” It is observed by Lightfoot (Matt. xxvi. 27): “‘ Here it is 
that Luke and Paul say that He took the cup after supper, that is, 
that cup which closed up the supper.” 

If the third cup or ‘‘cup of blessing” was the Lord’s sacramental 
cup, as is most probable, the blessing of the sacramental bread must 
have preceded it. We may say, either that after the lamb had been 
eaten and before the drinking of the third cup, He took of the bread 
and blessed it and gave them tc eat; or that He partook of the third 
cup as the last part of the paschal supper and then proceeded to the 
institution of His supper by blessing the bread and giving the cup. 

Some, however, make the second cup of Luke to have been the 
fourth cup.! The chief argument for this is, that if it was the third 
cup, the fourth cup must have been wholly omitted, which is not 
probable. Of this fourth cup, Brown remarks: ‘‘ We are not partic- 
ularly informed whether it immediately succeeded the third, or that 
a certain interval was between them. But we know that it was 
called the cup of the Hallel because the president finished over it the 
Hallel which he had begun over the second cup.” Still, as this ob- 
servance respecting the four cups of wine was not commanded in the 
law, Jesus might not have regarded it, and have sung the hymn after 
‘the third. It is said by Lightfoot: ‘‘ Whether He made use of this 
cup also, we do not dispute, it is certain He used the hymn.” If, 
however, a cup was taken after the sacramental cup, which is not 
probable, it is not mentioned. 

Confining ourselves to those arrangements that assume the Lord to 
have kept the paschal supper according to the Jewish ritual, we may 
thus classify them: 

1. That the paschal supper was wholly finished, the fourth cup 
having been drunk and the lesser Hallel sung, when the Lord insti- 
tuted His supper. (Langen and many.) 

2. Thatthe paschal supper as to its essential part was ended, the 
lamb having been eaten. At this point the Lord blessed the bread, 
and made the third cup Hissacramentalcup. (Light., Eders., Tisch., 
and most.) Others, that the fourth cup was the sacramental cup. 
(Meyer, Brown; Bynaeus hesitates between the third and fourth. 
The arrangements of these who hold that the supper was anticipatory 
and without the lamb, are various and need not be stated here.) 

We conclude that the second of the above arrangements has most 
in its favor. The Lord partook with the others of the paschal lamb, 
and when the law had been thus fulfilled and the supper ended, before 
proceeding to take the cup after supper, the cup of blessing, took 
bread, probably the unleayened bread upon the table, and gave 


1 Meyer, Brown. 


Part VIL] DEPARTURE OF JUDAS. 491 


thanks, and declaring it to be His body, gave them to eat. It had 
been a rule that the paschal lamb should be the last thing eaten; but 
He now set this aside and gave them the flesh of ‘‘the Lamb slain 
from the foundation of the world.” He now took the cup, and giv- 
ing thanks, gave it to them that all might drink. By thus placing 
the taking of the eucharistic bread immediately after, and in connec- 
tion with, the eating of the paschal lamb, we best meet the state- 
ments of Matthew and Mark, that ‘‘as they were eating — éc@ibvrw» 
air&v — He took bread,” etc. (See Eders., ii. 511: ‘‘ He connected 
with the breaking of the unleavened cake at the close of the paschal 
meal, the breaking of the bread and the eucharist.”) 

After this discussion as to the time of the institution of the sacra- 
mental supper, we return to the question whether Judas departed 
before or after the institution. 

Departure of Judas. Matthew (xxvi. 25), who alone relates the 
question of Judas, ‘‘ Master, is it I?” and the Lord’s reply, ‘‘ Thou 
hast said,” says nothing of his departure, but mentions the euchar- 
istic supper as taking place after the question and reply. John 
(xiii. 26-30), who mentions his departure immediately after receiving 
the sop, says nothing of the eucharistic supper. The Evangelists 
Mark and Luke do not speak of Judas by name. Where then, in 
Matthew’s narrative, shall weinsert hisdeparture? Probably between 
verses 25 and 26. (So Ellicott, Meyer.) From the expression (verse 
26): ‘‘ And as they were eating, Jesus took bread,” etc., some infer 
the presence of Judas, the paschal supper not being yet ended.* 
But the expression may mean no more than that, while yet at the 
table Jesus took bread; or if the eating was that of the lamb of 
which all were bound to partake, the peculiar position of Judas 
would justify his exclusion. The argument from the Lord’s words 
(verse 27), ‘‘ Drink ye all of it,” as implying that Judas was to drink 
with the others, is thus stated by Alford: ‘‘It is on all accounts 
probable, and this account confirms the probability that Judas was 
present and partook of both parts of this first communion. The ex- 
pressions are such throughout as to lead us to suppose that the same 
persons, the Twelve, were present.”” But Matthew uses the same ex- 
pression: ‘‘ All ye shall be offended in me this night” (verse 31, so 
verses 33 and 35), when only eleven were present. Perhaps the right 
explanation of the words ‘‘ Drink ye all of it,” may be that given by 
Buxtorf,? who says, that it is the law among the Jews, that all who 
were present at the paschal supper should drink of the four cups, 


1 Bengel; ergo Judas aderat. See his footnote. 
2 Cited by Bynaeus, i. 624. 


492 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part. VIL 


whether men or women, adults or children; and especially of the 
fourth or last cup. 

If we turn to the narrative of John, we read that, after Jesus gave 
Judas the sop, Satan entered into him, and ‘‘ he went immediately 
out.” Some have attempted to determine from the mention of the 
“sop” to what period of the meal this event is to be referred. But 
it is uncertain whether this sop — ywuiov — literally bit or morsel, was 
of flesh or bread.! If of bread, as is most probable, it may have been 
given immediately after the second cup when each of the company, 
wrapping a piece of unleavened bread in bitter herbs, dipped it in the 
sauce and ate it. This was before the paschal lamb was eaten. But, 
as both the bread and the sauce continued on the table to the end of 
the meal, the Lord may have given him the sop at a later period, and 
no definite inference can be drawn from this circumstance. Edersheim 
affirms that it was compounded of flesh of the lamb, unleayened 
bread, and bitter herbs. The Lord dipped this and gave it to Judas, 
after this the supper continued. 

If Judas went out immediately after receiving the sop, and yet 
was present at the Lord’s supper, this supper must have been prior to 
the dipping of the sop and the events immediately before it. But 
where in John’s narrative can it be placed? According to Stier, it 
may find place between verses 22 and 23. But there is the greatest 
intrinsic improbability, that after Jesus had solemnly announced to 
them, ‘‘ Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray 
me,” and “all were looking on one another doubting of whom He 
spake,” He should have proceeded at once to the institution of this 
holy rite. Itis to be noted, also, that in announcing the treachery 
of Judas (verse 21), ‘‘ He was troubled in spirit,” but that after the 
departure of Judas (verse 31), He said, ‘‘ Now is the Son of Man glo- 
rified, and God is glorified in Him.” There seems to be in John’s 
narrative no possible place for inserting the institution of the eucha- 
rist prior to the departure of Judas. Where, after that, it is to be 
placed is disputed. Some place it between verses 30 and 31 (Ellicott, 
Luthardt, Ebrard, Langen, McClel.); some between verses 32 and 33; 
some after verse 83; some after verse 38; and others find no place 
wholly satisfactory. 

Some would make a distinction between the two parts of the 
Lord’s supper, an interval elapsing between the consecration of the 
bread and that of the wine.* Hence, it is said that Judas partook of 


1 The opinion of Origen and others that this was the bread consecrated to be the 
Lord’s body, and now given to Judas, is refuted by Augustine. See Tholuck, in doco. 

4 Greswell, iii. 181. ‘‘The bread was ordained during the supper, the use of the 
cup was prescribed after it.” So Westcott, Godet. a Lapideon John xiii. 2, distinguishes 


Part VII.] DID JUDAS PARTAKE OF THE EUCHARIST? 498 


the bread but went out before the distribution of the cup. There is 
no sound basis for this distinction. 

Upon these grounds, we conclude that Judas left the paschal sup- 
per before the Lord instituted the eucharist. This point has been 
connected with questions respecting the spiritual efficacy of the sac- 
rament into which it would be foreign to our purpose to enter. The 
weight of authority down to recent times is in favor of the view that 
he was present and partook with the other apostles of the bread and 
wine.’ 

Some minor questions remain. Did the Lord partake of the pas- 
chal supper? Meyer insists that the words (Luke xxii. 17, 18) ‘‘ Take 
this and divide it among yourselves, for I say unto you, I will not 
drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God shall come,”’ 
show conclusively that He did not Himself drink of the cup, which 
abstinence, if this were the first cup, is most improbable; and he 
therefore infers that those words which, according to Matthew (xxvi. 
29), were later spoken, are erroneously inserted here. But it is by no 
means certain that the words, ‘‘Take this and divide it among 
yourselves,” do exclude His own participation in the first cup. As 
Luke alone reports His words: ‘‘ With desire I have desired to eat 
this passover with you,” it is almost certain that He had Himself par- 
taken of the cup ere He gave it to the disciples.’ 

Many identify Matt. xxvi. 29 and Mark xiv. 25 with Luke xxii. 
18, but this is doubtful ; the similarity may best be explained by sup- 
posing that the latter was spoken in reference to the paschal supper 
and before it began, the former in reference to the eucharistic sup- 
per. He kept the passover with His disciples according to the law, 
and thus fulfilled it; and He would no more partake of it till it should 
be observed in its new and higher form in the kingdom of God. He 
established the eucharistic supper, and henceforth would no more par- 
take of it till He partook of it new in the kingdom of His Father. It 


three suppers: Cewremonialis, the eating of the paschal lamb; Communis, the eating of 
other viands; Cana ‘Hucharistie. It was before this third and last that He washed their 
feet—not an ordinary rite, but a lotio sacramentalis, to prepare them for His supper. 
The Lord twice pointed out Judas as His betrayer, once before His supper, and once 
after; he was thus present at it. See Maldonatus on Matt. xxvi. 20. 

1 Wichelhaus (257) enumerates as its defenders, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Chry- 
sostom, the two Cyrils, Theodoret; and later, Bellarmine, Baronius, Maldonatus, Ger- 
hard, Beza, Bucer, Lightfoot, Bengel. Calvin is undecided; Probabile tamen esse non 
nego Judam affuisse. It is affirmed by the Lutherans but denied by the Reformed. Of 
the later commentators affirming it are McKnight, Krafft, Patritius, Stier, Alford, Stroud, 
Caspari; denying it, Meyer, Tischendorf, Robinson, Lichtenstein, Friedlieb, Bucher, 
Ebrard, Lanye, Wieseler, Riggenbach, Ellicott, Langen, Eders., M. and M., Woolsey, 
Keil; undecided, Farrar. For an interesting discussion of the point, see Bynaeus, i. 443. . 

2 See Alford and Keil, in loco. 


494 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


may be, that in this are references to two distinct ordinances in the 
age to come —that of the paschal supper for the Jews, and of the 
Lord’s supper for the Church. 

Did the Lord partake of the consecrated bread and wine? This 
is a point which the accounts of the Evangelists do not enable us to 
decide. It was answered affirmatively by many of the earlier inter- 
preters: Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom, and others. (See Langen, 
188.) 


EVENING FOLLOWING THURSDAY, THE 14TH NISAN, 
10-12 p.m. 6TH APRIL. 

After the supper Peter makes protestations of fidelity, Luke xxii. 31-38. 
but the Lord announces to him that before the cock shall Joun xiii. 36-38. 
crow he shall deny Him. Heteaches the disciples of the 
perils that await them, and they bring to Him twoswords, 

He proceeds to address to them words of encouragement, JOHN xiy. 1-31, 
and answers questions of Thomas and Philip. He adds 

the promise of the Comforter, and calling upon them to 

arise and depart with Him, He continues His address to 

them as they stand around Him, and ends with a prayer. JOHN XY., xvi., xvii. 


Matthew and Mark narrate the Lord’s announcement to 
Peter that he would deny Him, as if it took place after they had 
left the supper room, and were upon their way to the Mount of 
Olives; Luke and John, as taking place before they had left the 
room. Hence, some suppose that the announcement was made 
before they left it, and was renewed by the way; and that His 
declaration respecting the crowing of the cock was twice spoken: 
once in the room of the supper, as recorded by Luke and John, 
and once after they had left it, as recorded by Matthew and 
Mark.' Others, however, who agree with these that Jesus twice 
uttered the prediction respecting the denials of Peter, would 
identify Matthew, Mark, and Luke; but the last not narrating in 
chronological order. (See Edersheim, ii. 534, who seems to say 
that John and the Synoptists all refer to the same warning, and 
that on the way to Gethsemane.) This identification is defended 
on internal grounds, and especially that the Lord’s words to 
Peter, as given by Luke, “ When thou art converted, strengthen 
thy brethren,” seem plainly to point to His words respecting all 
the apostles, as given by Matthew and Mark, “All ye shall be 





1 Meyer, Alford, Oosterzee, Farrar, Riddle, Langen. 


—— =o a 


Part VIL] WARNINGS OF PETER. 495 


41 


offended because of me this night. That the prediction re- 
specting Peter’s denials was twice spoken, first at the paschal sup- 
per and then as they went to Gethsemane (so Lightfoot, Patri- 
tius, Townsend), is intrinsically probable, and wholly in accord- 
ance with Peter’s character. Jesus had said (John xiii. 33) that 
He must go whither His disciples could not follow Him. This 
leads Peter to ask whither He was going, and why he could not 
now follow Him; and he adds: “TI will lay down my life for 
thy sake.” Now the Lord declares to him that ere the cock 
crow, he shall deny Him thrice. (Keil thinks this warning of 
Peter was put by John in the supper room, because it could not 
well be inserted later between chapters xvii. and xviii.) Later, 
perhaps as they were approaching the garden of Gethsemane, 
Jesus, addressing them as a body, declares that “they all shall 
be offended in Him this night” (Matt. xxvi. 31). This leads 
Peter to repeat his protestations of fidelity, and to affirm that 
though all others should be offended, yet he would not. The 
Lord therefore repeats, and more emphatically: “Verily I say 
unto thee, this day, even in this night, before the cock crow 
twice, thou shalt deny me thrice” (Mark xiv. 30). 

According to some, the Lord three times predicted Peter’s 
denials, once as given by John, once by Luke, and once by 
Matthew and Mark.2 On the other hand, some make but one 
prediction, which John and Luke relate rightly as at the supper, 
and Matthew and Mark by retrospection.* Others still think it 
sightly placed by Matthew and Mark while on the way to Geth- 
semane.* 

The words the “cock shall not crow,” may be understood 
as referring, not to a literal cock, but to that watch of the night 
known as the “cock-crowing” (see Mark xiii. 35), or the third 
watch, that from 12-3 a.m. ‘“ Within the time of cock crow- 
ing,” says Lightfoot, ‘the short space of time between the first 
and second crowing.’ This would be equivalent to saying 
before early dawn thou shalt deny me. But the Lord seems to 
include the actual crowing of the cock, as the event shows (Mark 


1 See Bynaeus, ii. 9. 

2 So Augustine, Greswell, Grenville, Sadler. 

8 Newcome, Robinson, Riggenbach, Godet, Nebe. 
* So substantially Patritius. 


496 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


xlv. 66-72). The second crowing was probably about 3 a. m. 
That Mark should say, « Before the cock crow twice thou shalt 
deny me thrice,” while the other Evangelists say, “Before the 
cock crow thou shalt deny me thrice,” makes no real discrepancy. 
The latter speak generally of the cock-crowing as a period of 
time within which the three denials should take place; Mark 
more accurately says, that during this period the cock should 
not crow twice ere the denials were made.' The assertion that 
no cocks were permitted at Jerusalem has no basis.? 

The allusion to the swords is found only in Luke. Some, as 
Stier and Edersheim, make this incident to have taken place on the 
way to Gethsemane, and just before the entrance into it. As, 
however, it seems to be directly connected with the words spoken 
to Peter, it may have occurred in the supper room.* 

After thus warning His disciples of the twofold danger from 
invisible temptation and external violence, and encouraging them 
to trust in Him, and giving them the promise of the Comforter, 
He offers His farewell prayer, the hymn is sung—the second part 
of the Hallel, Psalms exv.—cxviii., or, as some say, Psalm exxxvi. 
—and the paschal solemnity is ended. We may, however, con- 
nect this hymn with His words (John xiv. 31), “ Arise, let us 
go hence,” or place it before the discourse. (So Eders., Farrar.) 

There is much difference of opinion as the place where these 
discourses of the Lord were made. Those who deny this supper 
in John (xiii. 2) to have been the paschal supper, but make it one 
previous at Bethany, place its close at xiv. 31, when Jesus arose to 
go to Jerusalem. Bynaeus finds three distinct discourses: the 
first, John xiii., at the supper on the evening of Wednesday pre- 
ceding the paschal supper; the second, John xiy., on Thursday 
just before Jesus left Bethany to go to Jerusalem to the paschal 
supper; the third, John xv., xvi. xvii, on the night following 
the paschal supper. 

But those who make the supper in John the paschal supper, 
agree that the Lord’s words from xiii. 31 to xiv. 31 were spoken 
in the upper room ; the question is as to chapters xv., xvi., and 


1 See Friedlieb, Archiol., 79; Greswell, iii. 211. 
2 See Alford on Matt. xxvi. 34. ‘It is certain that there were cocks at Jerusalem 
as well as at other places.” Lightfoot; Eders., ii, 537, note. 
8 So Da Costa, Ebrard, Oosterzee, Farrar, Godet. 


_—— SE eee 


Part VIL] JESUS GOES TO GETHSEMANE. 497 


xvii. Many understand the words “ Arise, let us go hence,” as 
showing that He then left the upper room to go to Gethsemane, 
and that the following discourse and the prayer were on the 
way. But to this there are some obvious objections. After His 
words, “ Arise, let us go hence,” no change of place is mentioned 
till the prayer is ended. Whether the statement of John xviii. 
1, ‘“« When Jesus had spoken these words, He went forth over the 
brook Cedron,” refers to His departure from the upper room, or 
departure from the city, is in dispute. Butif to the former, it 
is not probable that His discourse was spoken while they were 
walking, and still less His prayer. Godet thinks of some “re- 
tired spot on the slope which descends into the valley of the 
Cedron.” Westcott makes this discourse and prayer to have 
been spoken in the temple. (See contra, Eders., ii. 528, note.) 
The more general belief is that the Lord arose from the table 
with the apostles, but remained in the room, and all standing, 
He continued His discourse, and ended it with the prayer.’ 


NIGHT FOLLOWING THURSDAY, 14TH Nisan, 6TH APRIL. 


After His prayer is ended, Jesus goes with His disci- JOuN xviii. 1, 2. 
ples over the brook Cedron (Kidron) to the garden of Geth- Marr. xxvi. 30-36. 
semane, where He awaits the coming of Judas. This LUKE xxii. 39. 
apostate, after leaving the supper room, had gone to the MARK xiv. 26-82. 
priests, and with them made arrangement for the immedi- JOHN xviii. 3. 
ate arrest of the Lord. Coming to the garden, Jesus takes 
with Him Peterand James and John, and retires withthem MamTrT. xxvi. 37-46, 
to asecluded spot. Here He begins to be heavy with sor- MARK xiv. 33-42. 
row, and, leaving the three, goes aloneto pray. Return- LUKE xxii. 40-46. 
ing, He finds themasleep. Leaving them, He again prays 
and in His agony sweats a bloody sweat, but is strength- 
ened by an angel Again returning to the three disciples, 

He finds them asleep. He goes a third time and prays, 
and returning, bids them sleep on, but soon announces 
the approach of Judas. 


The hour when Jesus left the supper room to go- to Geth- 
semane cannot be exactly determined. Lichtenstein (411) puts 
it at midnight: first, because usually at this hour the supper was 
ended; second, because if He had left earlier, there would have 


1 So Meyer, Stier, Alford, Norton, Tholuck, Ellicott, Luthardt, Edersheim, Weiss; 
that it was spoken on the way, Langen, Lange, Da Costa, Ebrard, Patritius, Godet. 


500 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


gate into the valley and crossing a bridge, it is easily reached, 
being distant but nine or ten rods from the bridge. Formerly, 
it was unenclosed, but recently the Latins have built a high wall 
around it. There are within eight venerable olive trees, undoubt- 
edly of great age, their trunks much decayed, but their branches 
flourishing. “The most venerable of their race on the face of 
the earth,” says Stanley, “their gnarled trunks and scanty foli- 
age will always be regarded as the most affecting of the sacred 
memorials in or about Jerusalem.” The Greeks, envious of the 
Latins, have recently enclosed a piece of ground a little north 
beside the Virgin's tomb, and contend that this is the true 
garden.’ 

The words of Jesus at the paschal supper (John xiii. 27), 
“That thou doest, do quickly,’” forced Judas to do at once what 
he had apparently not designed to do till the feast was over. 
Perhaps he feared that if the arrest was not made the same night, 
Jesus would the next day leave the city. Of the movements of 
Judas after he left the supper, none of the Evangelists give us an 
account till he reappears at the garden of Gethsemane ; but we can 
readily picture them to ourselves in their outline. Going imme- 
diately to Caiaphas, or tosome other leading member of the San- 
hedrin, he informs him where Jesus is, and announces that he is 
ready to fulfill his compact and at once to make the arrest. It 
was not, as we have seen, the intention to arrest Him during the 
feast lest there should be a popular tumult (Matt. xxvi. 5); but 
now that an opportunity offered of seizing Him secretly at dead 
of night when all were asleep or engaged at the paschal meal, 
and therefore without danger of interference or uproar, His 
enemies could not hesitate. Once in their hands, the rest was 
easy. A hasty trial, a prejudged condemnation, an immediate 
execution, and the hated Prophet of Galilee was forever removed 
out of their way. All, perhaps, might be done by the hour of 
morning prayer and sacrifice. With great despatch all the 
necessary arrangements are made. Some soldiers the Sanhe- 
drin had under its own direction, the guards of the temple com- 


1 Porter, i. 177; Baedeker, 216. 

2 Tt is a strange fancy of Greswell that those words were spoken to Satan wha 
had entered into Judas. 

% Lichtenstein, 414 





Part VIL] EVENTS IN GETHSEMANE. 501 


manded by “the captains of the temple,” or, as translated by 
Campbell, “ officers of the temple guard ;”’ and to these they added 
some of their own servants armed with staves. But they must 
be attended by Roman soldiers in case a disturbance should 
arise; and to this end Pilate was persuaded to place at their 
command the cohort, or a part of it, under its captain, yAtapyoc, 
that during the feast was stationed at Fort Antonia for the 
preservation of order.? Some of the chief priests and elders 
were also themselves to be present, to direct the proceedings, 
and if necessary, to control the people.* The soldiers, or some 
portion of them, were to be provided with lanterns and torches, 
probably to search the garden if any attempt was made to escape. 
That at this time the moon was at the full, presents no objection. 
“They would,” says Hackett (140), ‘need lanterns and torches, 
even in aclear night and under a brilliant moon, because the 
western side of Olivet abounds in deserted tombs and caves.” 
It is possible that they thought to surprise Him asleep. It was 
agreed that Judas should precede the others, and, approaching 
Him in a friendly way, kiss Him, and thus make Him known. 
This indicates that no resistance was anticipated. 

Of the events at Gethsemane prior to the arrival of Judas, 
John says nothing. Luke is brief, and, omitting the choice of 
the three apostles to accompany Jesus, mentions but one prayer. 
On the other hand, he alone mentions the bloody sweat and the 
presence of the angel (xxii. 40-46). In Matthew and Mark we 
find the fullest details. 

Whether all the apostles entered the garden does not appear; 
but if so, all except Peter, James, and John, remained near the 
entrance. How long time He was with the three in the recesses 
of the garden can but be conjectured, for the words given by 
Matthew (xxvi. 40), “What, could ye not watch with me one 
hour?” do not imply, as said by Greswell, that this was the 
time actually occupied in His prayer, but are a proverbial expres- 


1 Luke xxii. 52, probably a police force; Joseph., War, vi. 5. 18; Eders., Temple 
Services, 119. 

2 John xviii. 3 and 12. See Meyer, in loco. Nebe (268) thinks that this was not 
done by Pilate, but by the chiliarch on his own responsibility. Biumlein questions 
whether any Roman soldiers were present. The point, what part Pilate had im the 
arrest, will be examined later. 

§ Luke xxii.52 Lichtenstein, 416. 


502 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


sion denoting a brief interval. As Luke alone mentions the 
appearing of the angel, it is not certain where this should find 
place in Matthew’s account. Some place it between the first 
and second prayer to strengthen Him for that more terrible 
struggle to come when He sweat drops of blood.’ Others 
make the agony and bloody sweat to have taken place before the 
appearance of the angel, and to have been its occasion, although 
narrated after it. That the grief and heaviness were greatest 
during the first prayer, may be inferred from Matthew and Mark. 
The language of Luke does not permit us to think of sweat 
falling in large, heavy drops like blood, but of sweat mingled 
with blood.? 

The Lord’s words to the three apostles after His last return 
to them (Matt. xxvi. 45; so Mark), ‘Sleep on now and take 
your rest,” are understood by some as giving them permission 
and opportunity to sleep, because the hour of His agony was past 
and the need of their help. ‘The obvious objection to this 
explanation is that in the same breath He tells them to awake; 
but even this is not unnatural, if taken as a sort of after-thought 
suggested by the sight or sound of the approaching enemy.”* 
Others understand them as ironically spoken.‘ Others still, as 
interrogatively : ‘‘Sleep ye on still and take ye your rest ?”® 
The first explanation is to be preferred. “The former words,” 
says Ellicott, ‘were rather in the accénts of a pensive contem- 
plation — the latter in the tones of exhortation and command.” 
It was the sudden appearance of Judas and his band that caused 
the words, “Rise, let us be going; behold, he is at hand that 
doth betray me,” and explain their apparent abruptness.* 
Hackett (254) connects them with the local position of the gar- 
den from which Jesus could survey at a glance the entire length 
of the eastern wall and the slope of the hill toward the valley. 


. 
§ 


1 Meyer, Alford, Keil. 

2 Meyer, Alford, DeWette. For cases having points of similarity, see Stroud on 
Death of Christ, 85, and note iii. By W. and H., verses 43 and 44 in Luke xxii. are 
bracketed. 

3 Alexander. See Lichtenstein, 414. 4 Calvin, Campbell, Meyer. 

5 Greswell, iii. 194; Robinson, Har., 151. The former would refer Luke xxii. 45, — 
not to the three disciples, but to the eight whom He found also asleep near the entrance 
of the garden. There seems no basis for this. 

6 See Mark xiy. 41: ‘It is enough, the hour is come,” é. ¢., “Ye have slept 
enough.” 


Part VII.] THE LORD’S ARREST. 503 


“Tt is not improbable that His watchful eyes at that moment 
caught sight of Judas and his accomplices as they issued from 
one of the eastern gates, or turned round the northern or south- 
ern corner of the walls in order to descend into the valley.” 


NIGHT FOLLOWING THURSDAY, THE 14TH NISAN, 6TH APRIL. 


Upon the arrival of Judas and those with him, Jesus, JOHN xviii. 3-12. 
accompanied by the apostles, goes forth from the gar- Matt. xxvi. 47-56. 
den to meet him. Judas, coming forward before the Mark xiv. 43-52. 
others, kisses Him asasigntothem. Addressing Judas LUKE xxii. 47, 48. 
with the words, ‘‘ Betrayest thou the Son of man with 
a kiss,’ He advances to the multitude and demands of 
them whom they seek. At their reply, ‘‘Jesus of 
Nazareth,” He answers, ‘‘I am He,” and they go back- 
ward and fall to the ground. Again He asks the same 
question, and receives the same reply. He now re- 
quests that the apostles may go free. As they proceed LUKE xxii. 49-53. 
to take and bind Him, Peter smites a servant of the 
high priest, but the Lord heals the wound. Beholding 
their Master in the power of His enemies, all the 
apostles forsake Him and flee, and also a young man 
who had followed Him. He reproaches the multitude 
that they had come to arrest Him as a thief. 


The time spent in the garden was probably more than 
an hour, so that, if they entered it an hour before midnight, 
it was about midnight when Judas came.’ Some suppose 
that Judas with his band must first have gone to the room of 
the supper, and then, not finding the Lord, to the garden (so 
Stroud, Edersheim). The Lord seems to have met him near the 
entrance of the garden, whether without it or within it, is not 
certain. ‘“‘He went forth” (John xviii. 4); ‘‘out of the gar- 
den” (Meyer); ‘‘out of the circle of the disciples” (Lange); 
“from the shade of the trees into the moonlight” (Alford); 
“from the bottom of the garden to the front part of it” (Tho- 
luck). The matter is unimportant. According to his arrange- 
ment with the priests, Judas, seeing the Lord standing with 
the disciples, leaves those that accompanied him a little 
behind, and coming forward salutes Him with the usual 
salutation, and kisses Him. To this Jesus replies, ‘Friend, 
wherefore art thou come?” (R. V., “Friend, do that for which 


1 Jones, Notes, 331, makes the arrest to have been about 10 Pp. mw., and Jesus taken 
to Caiaphas about 11 p. m; Stroud, the arrest at 11; McClellan about midnight. 


504 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


thou art come,” Matt. xxvi. 50). ‘ Betrayest thou the Son of 
man with a kiss?” (Luke xxii. 48). Appalled at these words, 
Judas steps backward, and Jesus goes toward the multitude, 
who were watching what was taking place, and who, beholding 
Him advance, await His approach. It may be that Judas had 
advanced so far before his companions that he was not seen by 
them to kiss the Lord, and that they were still awaiting the 
sign. He asks, ‘Whom seek ye?” They reply, “Jesus of 
Nazareth.” His words, ‘Iam He,” spoken with the majesty that 
became the Son of God, so overawed them that they went back- 
ward and fell to the ground. After a like question and reply, 
He requests them to let the apostles go free, thus implying His 
own willingness to be taken; and they, thus emboldened, now 
lay hands upon Him. At this moment Peter draws his sword 
and smites one of the band. Jesus orders him to put up his 
sword, and declares that He gives Himself up to them volun- — 
tarily, and that, if He needed help, His Father would send Him ~ 
legions of angels. The healing of the servant’s ear is mentioned ~ 
' only by Luke (xxii. 51). He now addresses a few words to the 
chief priests and captains and elders, who had probably to this 
time been standing behind the soldiers, and now came forward; 
and, as He finished, the apostles, seeing Him wholly in the 
power of His enemies, forsook Him and fled. It does not ap- 
pear that there was any design to arrest them. If their Master 
was removed out of the way, the Sanhedrin doubtless thought 
that they would soon sink into obscurity. There was no attempt 
to seize them, and in the darkness and confusion they could 
easily escape. Peter and John, however, continued waiting near 
by, watching the progress of events. The incident of the young - 
man “having a linen cloth cast about his naked body,” is 
mentioned only by Mark (xiv. 51, 52). From the linen cloth 
or cloak, Lightfoot infers that he was a religious ascetic, and 
not a disciple of Jesus, but a casual looker-on. Lichtenstein 
(395) and many make him to have been the Evangelist Mark 
himself, and son of the man at whose house Jesus ate the 
paschal supper, and thus having a personal interest in the nar- 
rative; others, John; others, James the Just.’ 






















1 See Alexander, in loco. The matter is elaborately discussed by Bynaeus, ii. 228; 
Edersheim, ii. 545, speaks as if it were Mark without doubt. 


Part VIL] THE LORD LED TO ANNAS. 


008 


The circumstances connected with the arrest are put by some 
in another order, in which the incidents narrated by John (xviii. 
4-9), the going forth of Jesus to the multitude, His questions to 
them, and their prostration, all took place before Judas ap- 
proached Him to kiss Him.’ According to Stier (vii. 277), 
Judas was with the band, but stood irresolute as the Lord came to 
meet them. He with the others fell to the ground, but, reviv- 
ing, went forward to give the kiss. But why give the kiss to 
make Jesus known, when He already avowedly stood before 
them? It was not needed as a sign. Stier affirms that it 
was given in “the devilish spirit to maintain his consistency and 
redeem his word.” This may be so, but the order before given 
is more probable.” 


Fripay Morninec, 15TH Nisan, 7TH APRIL. 


From the garden Jesus is taken first to the house of 
Annas, and after a brief delay here, to the palace 
of Caiaphas, the high priest; Peter and John follow- 
ing Him. Here, while the council is assembling, He 
is subjected to a preliminary examination by Caiaphas 
respecting His disciples and doctrine. The council 
haying assembled, He is put on trial. As the wit- 
nesses disagree and no charge can be proved against 
Him, He is adjured by Caiaphas to tell whether He 
be the Christ. Upon His confession He is condemned 
as guilty of blasphemy. During this period, Peter, 
who had followed Him with John to the high priest’s 
palace, there denies Him, and, reminded of His words 
by the crowing of the cock, goes out to weep. 


JOHN xviii, 13-15. 


Matt, xxvi. 57, 58. 
MARK xiy. 53, 54, 
LUKE xxii. 54, 55. 
JOHN xviii. 19-24. 
MatrT. xxvi. 59-66. 
Mark xiy. 55-64. 


Matt. xxvi. 69-75. 
Mark xiv. 66-72. 
LUKE xxii. 56-62. 
JOHN xviii. 15-18. 
JOHN xviii. 25-27, 


The general order of events immediately following the arrest 


is plain: 1. The Lord is led to Annas. 
to Caiaphas the high priest. 
drin, tried and condemned. 


2. He is sent by Annas 
3. He is brought before the Sanhe- 
4. During this period Peter three 


times denies the Lord. But there are some points of contro- 
versy: 1. Before whom, Annas or Caiaphas, was the first exam- 
ination held? 2. What was the nature of this examination? 
3. The competence of the court and the legality of the trial. 
4. When and where did the denials of Peter take place? 


1. Before whom, Annas or Caiaphas, was the first examination held ? 
It is said by Matthew (xxvi. 57) that after the Lord’s arrest ‘‘ they 


1 So Robinson, Alford, Stier. 
2 So Lichtenstein, Kraft, Ebrard, Luthardt, Meyer, Patritius. 
2 ee 


506 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD, [Part VIL 


led Him away to Caiaphas the high priest.” Mark and Luke say 
only that He was led to the high priest, without naming him. John 
(xviii. 18) alone mentions that ‘‘He was led to Annas first,” and was 
afterward sent by him to Caiaphas, and from Caiaphas was taken 
to the prietorium or hall of judgment (verse 28). This Evangelist 
mentions no hearing before the Sanhedrin unless it be this one con- 
ducted by the high priest (verses 19-23). At first view, it seems 
that Caiaphas, not Annas, must be meant (verse 19: ‘‘The high 
priest asked,” etc.). The ground assigned by John for taking Him to 
Annas is that he ‘‘ was father-in-law to Caiaphas, which was the high 
priest that same year.” Caiaphas is again called the high priest, 
verse 24, and it would seem that the palace of the high priest to 
which John and Peter went following the Lord, must have been that 
of Caiaphas, and that the informal examination that then took place, 
was by him; and this was the understanding of the translators of 
the A. V., for they translate verse 24, ‘‘ Now Annas had sent Him 
bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.” If this rendering be kept, it 
would show that this sending was before the examination mentioned 
(verses 19-23), and that this examination was by Caiaphas. 

But it is said that verse 24 cannot be rendered ‘‘had sent” 
‘drécreckev — it must be rendered as in the R. V., ‘‘sent;” ‘* Annas 
sent Him bound.” If so understood, the examination was by 
Annas, and before he sent the Lord to Caiaphas. But this is a point 
upon which the grammarians differ,! and one which we are not called 
upon to discuss. Many look upon verse 24 in John’s narrative as 
parenthetical. Thus it is said by Edersheim: ‘It is an intercalated 
notice, referring to what had been previously recorded in verses 
15-23;” and by Greswell: ‘‘A notice parenthetically inserted.” In 
this case nothing is told us of the interview between Annas and the 
Lord; all that is recorded is the informal examination in the house 
of Caiaphas.? 

If, then, as said by Winer, the meaning of this statement ‘‘ cannot 
be decided on grammatical grounds,” we must seek help by con- 
sidering the attendant circumstances, and first those connected with 
the person and residence of Annas. 


1 Winer, Gram., trans. 275, leaves the point undecided; so Buttmann, New Test. 
Gram., 173. In favor of rendering ‘‘ had sent,’’ De Wette, Tholuck, Robinson, Greswell, 
Norton, Edersheim, Krafft, Gardiner; for the rendering ‘‘ sent,’’ Meyer, Godet, Luthardt, 
Ellicott, Westcott, Riddle, Nebe; for a full argument on the aorist here defending its use 
as pluperfect, see Gardiner in Journal of Bib. Lit., June 1886, 45 .; also Baumlein, 
Keil, in loco; contra, Meyer, in loco, Dwight, additional note to Godet. 

2 For this solution, beside the older harmonists and commentators, Lightfoot, 
Lardner, Bynaeus, Grotius; of the later, Robinson, Greswell, Krafft, De Costa, Norton, 
Friedlieb, Baumlein, Edersheim, Langen. 





Part VIL] THE LORD'S FIRST EXAMINATION. 507 


Why was the Lord taken to Annas? It is often said that he was 
the president or vice-president of the Sanhedrin’ and so had a 
legal right to examine Him. But John (xviii. 13) seems to assign 
the real cause when he says that he was father-in-law to Caia- 
phas (so Ellicott, 333, note). It is apparent from Josephus (Antiq., 
xx. 9. 1), for his name occurs in the Gospels only here and in Luke 
iii. 2, that he was a man of very great influence; and probably may 
have been in fact, though not in name, the ecclesiastical head of 
the nation. It is in this personal reputation and authority rather 
than in any official position, that we find the explanation of the 
fact that the Lord was taken to him first. As the former high priest. 
as father-in-law of the present high priest, as an experienced and 
able counsellor, and deeply interested in this matter, a wish on his 
part to see privately so noted a man, aside from other reasons, 
would sufficiently explain why the Lord was led before him (Weiss, 
ili. 333). But if He was examined by him, Annas is called ‘‘ the high 
priest,” for ‘‘ the high priest asked Jesus of His disciples.” It seems 
scarcely possible that the Evangelist should make such repeated men- 
tion of the high priesthood of Caiaphas, emphasizing his official posi- 
tion, and yet should put the only examination of the Lord he men- 
tions before Annas, whose only claim to this high dignity was that 
he was father-in-law of the high priest. And this is the more re- 
markable since John evidently regarded Caiaphas (see verse 14) as the 
Lord’s chief and most determined enemy. 

The assertion of many, that Luke, who does not mention his 
name, intends to designate Annas as the high priest (xxii. 54) has no 
sufficient basis. That he does (iii. 2) speak of both Annas and Caia- 
phas as high priests, and in Acts (iv. 6) names Caiaphas without any 
official title but calls Annas the high priest, does not show that Annas 
is here meant. There is no question that Caiaphas was the legal and 
acting high priest. As such he is designated by Matthew and Mark, 
and as such he takes the lead in all the judicial proceedings against 
Jesus. Of these facts Luke could not be ignorant. He himself 
names Caiaphas high priest. The presumption is therefore very 
strong that he alludes to him here, and that all he relates (verses 54~ 
65) was in his palace. 

As the place of Annas’ residence to which the Lord was taken, 
whether the same as that of Caiaphas or separate, makes an impor- 
tant element in our enquiry, we must examine it. 

There is a tradition that Annas had a house on the Mount of 
Olives near the booths or bazaars under the ‘‘ Two Cedars.” It is said 
by Lightfoot (x. 20) that ‘‘there were two cedars on Mt. Olivet, and 


1 See earlier discussion, page 142, and Keim, iil. 22; Wies., Beitrage, 206. 


508 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VII — 


under one of these were four shops where all things needful for 
purification were found,” but he does not connect them with Annas. 
(See his map of the city, where the two cedars and the booths are 
shown.) In another place he speaks of the Sanhedrin as removed 
from the room Gazith to the shops. It is said by Derenbourg (200, 
note 13): ‘‘ These shops were probably owned by the priests, and 
at this time belonged to the friends of Annas.” That Annas had 
a house here, and that Jesus was led to him after His arrest, is said by 
Stapfer. (See also Westcott on John xviii. 15.) Another tradition 
makes Annas to have had a house on the ‘‘ Hill of Evil Counsel,” 
where it is said the Jews met to take counsel how to destroy Jesus; 
and here Jesus was taken. But Robinson (i. 276) thinks that this 
name given to the hill does not go back later than the ending of 
the 15th century. Following the tradition that Annas had a house 
on this hill, Barclay (84) makes Jesus to have been taken to him 
there, and then taken to the palace of Caiaphas on Mt. Zion. But 
the tradition which places the palace of Annas on Mt. Zion, has 
much more in its favor, and to this quarter of the city we conclude 
that the Lord was led from Gethsemane. Whether Annas and Caia 
phas had each a palace here, is in question. One tradition points 
-out the ruins of the country house of Caiaphas on the Hill of Evil 
Counsel; and another puts it where now stands the Armenian Monas- 
tery; and not far removed was the house of Annas, perhaps, as said 
by Edersheim, on the slope between the upper city and the Tyropeon. 

But did the high priest at this time have an official residence? 
This is often said. Thus Ellicott speaks of ‘‘ a common official resi- 
dence,” and Godet of ‘‘ the sacerdotal palace.” (See also Wies., Bei- 
trige, 209.) But no distinct mention of any such official residence is 
found, though Josephus (War, ii. 17. 6) speaks of the burning of 
the high priest’s house. According to Stroud (187), this palace 
was within the precincts of the temple, and included the hall of 
judgment where the Sanhedrin had its sessions, but he cites no 
authorities. 

The view that Annas and Caiaphas, being near relatives, had a 
common residence, is an old one; there is nothing intrinsically im- 
probable in it and it is now accepted by many. It is modified by 
McClellan (Har., 603), who supposes that Annas may have been ‘‘ pres- 
ent at the palace of Caiaphas, and occupying for the occasion a sepa- 
rate official chamber, whence he sent Jesus to the official chamber of 
Caiaphas,” and finds an illustration in the judges of the several courts 
in Westminster Hall having their special official rooms. So in this 
case, the palace was that of the high priest, and thither Jesus 
was taken and brought before Annas, who was awaiting Him, and 





Part VII.] BEFORE WHOM THE FIRST EXAMINATION ? 509 


who had a preliminary examination in one room while the members 
of the Sanhedrin were assembling in another. Some say that Caia- 
phas was with Annas and took the leading part in the examination. 
(So M. and M.) Still it must be admitted that the statement that 
He was taken to Annas first and then sent by him to Caiaphas, seems 
to imply more than a mere transference from one room to another in 
the same palace. Perhaps, however, an argument may be found for 
this view in the statement that Annas sent Him ‘‘ bound” unto Caia- 
phas. Having been bound at the time of His arrest (John xviii. 12), 
it might appear that He was not unbound during that examination, 
which then must have been a very brief one, the object of the bonds 
being to prevent His escape while passing to the place of trial. For 
this reason, He was unbound when before the court, and bound 
again when taken to Pilate (Matt. xxvii. 2). 

Another view of the matter is preferred by some: that Jesus was 
led to the palace of Annas and that Caiaphas was there, and, as the 
high priest, conducted the examination mentioned by John; and that 
Jesus was sent after it by Annas to the house of Caiaphas, where the 
Sanhedrists were assembling. 

The bearing of the denials of Peter on the point before us may be 
briefly noticed. The first denial, at least, must have been in the 
house where the first examination was held; if this was the house of 
Annas, Peter must have followed the Lord thither. That the second 
and third denials were in the same house or court, is plain from the 
mention of the fire kindled there (John xviii. 18). But Matthew 
(xxvi. 58) seems clearly to say that Peter followed Jesus to the 
palace of Caiaphas where the scribes and elders were assembled, 
and that here in its court the denials of Peter were made. Some 
find here an irreconcilable discrepancy between Matthew and John 
(Meyer, Bleek). 

We have thus two suppositions. ist. That Annas and Caiaphas 
had a common palace. In this case, both might have been present at 
the examination; or which is in effect the same, that Annas was at 
the palace of Caiaphas waiting for the Lord’s arrest. But whether 
the questions were asked by Caiaphas as the high priest, or by Annas 
who is so called, is not determined. 

2d. That Annas and Caiaphas had separate palaces, that Jesus 
was first taken to Annas but not examined by him, and was sent to the 
palace of Caiaphas, and that here the examination mentioned by John 
took place. In this case the statement in verse 24 is supplementary. 
The obvious objection to this is that it seems to make the mention of 
the taking to Annas superfluous, as nothing is related of the inter- 
view. But it isa little detail which a writer might naturally men- 


510 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


tion for the sake of completeness; or it may be to show that all were 
united in their hostility to the Lord. It certainly presents no greater 
difficulty than the abrupt manner in which this Evangelist passes 
from the examination, supposing it to have been by Annas, to the next 
statement (verse 28): ‘‘Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the 
hall of judgment.” But in whatever point of view we regard it, the 
position of verse 24 is peculiar. Some would place it after verse 13 
(so Luther quoted in Meyer), but for this there is no authority; some 
find the key to its meaning in the word ‘‘ bound,” as referring us back 
to verses 22 and 23. Annas had sent Him to Caiaphas bound, yet 
Caiaphas, the high priest, permits Him thus helpless to be smitten in 
his presence. Looking upon the matter historically, the most proba- 
ble arrangement is that the Lord, though taken to the palace of 
Annas first, (if examined by him, which is not unlikely, no record of it 
is given,) was after a short interval sent to Caiaphas, in whose 
palace the examination took place. 

2. The nature of this first examination. Are we to identify this 
with that before the conncil in Matt. xxvi. 59? This issaid by some, 
but the statement of John shows that this examination had no judi- 
cial character; there was no formal accusation, no witnesses, no 
sentence pronounced. There is nothing to indicate that Jesus was 
now before the Sanhedrin charged with a definite crime, and the 
questions asked seemed designed to find some matter of accusation. 

We conclude then that this examination was one preliminary to 
the trial; and thisis generally accepted. 

3. The trial before the Sanhedrin. Thisis given only by the Synop- 
tists, John’s account, as we have seen, being that only of the prelimi- 
nary examination. In considering the legality of the trial several 
points are before us. 

a. The competency of the court. As to this, no reasonable doubt 
can exist. It is said by Schirer (ii. 1. 185) that it was ‘“‘the su- 
preme native court, which here, as almost everywhere else, the 
Romans had allowed to continue as before, only imposing certain 
restrictions with regard to competency. . . . It was the final 
court of appeal for questions connected with the Mosaic law. . 
It also enjoyed a considerable amount of criminal jurisdiction.” 
Among the offenses of which it took cognizance, were false claims 
to prophetic inspiration, and blasphemy. It also had charge of 
police matters, and had its own officers to make arrests (John vii. 32; 
Acts iv. 1-3; see Edersheim ii. 553). Several instances are men- 
tioned in the Acts of the Apostles where the disciples were arraigned 
before it: iv. 5-21; v. 17-40; vi. 12-15; xxiii. 1-10. Although its 
origin cannot easily be traced, it was at this time the recognized tri- 





Part VII.] JUDICIAL POWERS OF THE SANHEDRIN. 511 


bunal for the trial of all the more important offenses.! That usually 
the trials were fair and the judgments equitable, there seems no good 
reason to doubt. 

While the Sanhedrin had power to try those charged with capital 
offenses, it had no power to execute the sentence of death. ‘‘It was 
only in cases in which such sentence of death was pronounced, that 
the judgment required to be ratified by the authority of the procura- 
tor” (Schiirer). It is generally agreed that from the time Judza be- 
came a Roman province, or from the deposition of Archelaus (759) 
the authority to punish capitally, the jus gladii, had been takea away 
from the Jewish tribunals. Lightfoot (on Matt. xxvi. 3) gives asa 
tradition of the Talmudists: ‘‘ Forty years before the temple was de- 
stroyed, judgment in capital cases was taken away from Israel.” But 
this limitation to forty years has clearly no basis. It seems to have 
been the custom of the Romans to take into their own hands, in con- 
quered provinces, the power of life and death, as one of the princi- 
pal attributes of sovereignty.?_ That the Sanhedrin lost this power 
by its own remissness and not by any act of the Romans, as affirmed 
by Lightfoot from the Talmudists, is wholly improbable.‘ 

It has been inferred by some from Pilate’s words to the Jews 
(John xix. 6), ‘‘ Take ye Him and crucify Him,” that the right to in- 
flict capital punishment in ecclesiastical cases, though not in civil, 
was still continued to them.‘ Bynaeus (iii. 10) affirms that the Jews 
had had judgment in capital cases other than that of treason, but that 
from fear of the people they charged the Lord with this offense in 
order to throw the odium of His execution upon Pilate. But these 
words seem to have been spoken in bitter irony. Crucifixion was 
not a Jewish punishment, nor could they inflict it. Krafft (142) 
explains their language (John xviii. 30), ‘‘ If He were not a male- 
factor, we would not have delivered Him up unto thee,” as meaning 
that He was guilty of a civil offense; as if they had said, ‘‘ Were 
this man a spiritual offender, we would have punished Him our- 
selves.” They therefore accused Him of civil crime in order to 
throw the responsibility of His death upon Pilate. But against 
this isthe fact that Pilate refused to punish Him for any such offense, 
and that the Jews were at last obliged to charge Him with violation 
of ecclesiastical law (John xix. 7). It is certain that if they had had 
power to punish Him upon this ground, he would at once have given 


1 Friedlieb, Archiiol., 20; Winer, ii. 552. 

2 See Dupin, Jesus devant Caiphe et Pilate. Paris, 1855, p. 88. 

8 See Winer, ii. 553, note 1; Friedlieb, Archiiol., 97. 

4 So A. Clarke, Krafft. 

5 Meyer, in loco. ‘“‘Is He to be crucified? Then it shall be by yourselves, and net 
by me.” M. and M. 


512 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


the case into their hands and thus thrown off all responsibility from 
himself. Their words (xviii. 31), ‘“‘It is not lawful for us to put any 
man to death,” seem plainly to cover the whole ground and to em- 
brace ecclesiastical as well as civil cases.! The view supported by 
some,” that the Jews had authority to put Jesus to death, but did not 
dare exercise it because of the holiness of the day, and yet did not 
dare retain Him in prison lest it should provoke insurrection, and so 
sought Pilate’s help, seems without any good basis. 

It thus appears that all capital offenses must be reserved to the 
cognizance of the procurator. The Sanhedrin could try and convict, 
but must obtain his assent ere the sentence could be executed. 
These reserved cases Pilate seems to have been in the habit of hear- 
ing when he went up from Cesarea to Jerusalem at the feasts. The 
case of Jesus, then, must necessarily come before him, and he could 
confirm or set aside their verdict as he pleased. ‘‘ It appears,” says 
Lardner, ‘‘from the sequel, that Pilate was the supreme judge in this 
case and the master of the event. For he gave the case a fresh hear- 
ing, asked the Jews what accusation they had brought, examined 
Jesus, and when he had done so, told them that he found in Him no 
fault at all. Thus his conduct is full proof that he was the judge, 
and that they were only prosecutors and accusers.” 

b. The legality of the procedure. It cannot be denied that in 
some important points the court did not observe its own rules. These 
were violated both as regards the time and the place. No session could 
be held at night, but ‘‘ they spent the night in judging on a capital 
cause, which is expressly forbid by their own canon” (Light. on Matt. 
xxvii. 1); and the regular place of meeting was in the hall Gazith cou- 
nected with the temple (Light., ‘‘ Prospect of the Temple”, chapter 
xxii.). But more important violations were that no formal accusation 
was presented, and no accuser appeared; that no witnesses appeared 
for the Lord, and that the witnesses against Him were not shown to 
be trustworthy; that He Himself was put under oath;* and that the 
sentence was immediately carried into execution, the usual delay of 
twenty-four hours not being granted. That the legal forms were not 
observed, is not only said by Christians but admitted by some of the 
Jews. Thus Jost (quoted in Edersheim, ii. 553) calls the condemna- 
tion ‘‘a private murder, committed by burning enemies, not the sen- 
tence of a regularly constituted Sanhedrin.” In fact, He had long 


1 As to the death of Stephen (Acts vii. 58), and its bearings on this point, see 
Meyer and Lechler in Joco, who maintain that it was an act of violence, and illegal; so 
Schiirer; contra, Alexander, in loco; Wimer, ii. 553, note 2. 

2 Early by Augustine; see Godwyn, Moses and Aaron, 200. 

8 See Friedlieb, Archaol., 87; Dupin, 75; Keim, iii. 327 ff. 


Part VII] OF WHAT THE LORD ACCUSED. 513 


been prejudged and His death predetermined. Almost from the be- 
ginning of His ministry, spies had been sent to watch His actions; 
and afterward it was agreed that if any man did confess that He was 
Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue (John ix. 22). After 
the resurrection of Lazarus, it was determined in council by the 
advice of Caiaphas that He should be put to death, and that on the 
ground of the public welfare, without regard to His guilt or innocence 
(John xi. 47-53). After His public entry into Jerusalem, several 
attempts were made to entangle Him in His talk; thenaconsultation 
was held how they might take Him by subtlety and kill Him; then 
one of His apostles was bribed to betray Him; and at last He was 
arrested at dead of night. The abuse which He suffered both before 
and after the trial, and in the very presence of His judges, suffi- 
ciently shows how bitter and cruel was their enmity toward Him. 

ce. The nature of the accusation. It was very difficult for the 
tulers to find any offense recognized as such by the Roman governor, 
for which the Lord could be condemned to death. As He said at His 
examination before the high priest, He had spoken openly to the 
world in the temple and the synagogue, He had said nothing in 
secret, so that there was no want of witnesses; but there was nothing 
that answered their purpose till two testified of His words spoken at 
the first passover (John ii. 19): “ Destroy this temple, and in three 
days I will raise it up.” By perverting His language, this was made 
a boast or a threat; but if deserving of any punishment, certainly not 
worthy of death; and even here the witnesses did not agree. Some 
more serious offense must be found, and this must be found in His 
Messianic claims. That Jesus claimed to be the predicted Messiah, 
and that His disciples believed on Him as such, was well-known. 
But that the mere claim to be the Messiah, if proved false, was re- 
garded by the Jews as blasphemy and a capital offense, is very ques- 
tionable; still if so, there was the difficulty in finding sufficient proof 
against Him. In no instance recorded, except that of the Samaritan 
woman (John iv. 26), did He avow Himself to be the Christ when 
other than His disciples were present. Nor did He permit evil spirits 
to proclaim Him as the Messiah (Mark i. 34). To the direct question 
of the Jews (John x. 24), He answered by referring them to His works. 
He permitted the apostles to confess their faith in Him as the Christ 
(Matt. xvi. 16), but He gave them strict command that they should 
tell it to no man (verse 20). Probably no two witnesses could be 
found outside of the ranks of the disciples, who had ever heard out of 
His own lips an avowal of His Messiahship. Had, then, such an 
avowal been blasphemy, they could not on this ground have con- 
demned Him for want of proof, 

22* 


514 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL. 


What grounds of accusation did His acts give? That in several 
points He had disregarded the Pharisaic traditions was not denied. 
He had broken the Sabbath according to their construction of the 
law, by the healing of the sick on that day, and perhaps in other 
ways; He had assumed the right to forgive sins; He had declared 
Himself the Lord of the Sabbath; He had cleansed the temple, and 
spoken very severe words against the ecclesiastical rulers and the popu- 
lar leaders. But we may doubt whether if these were all, He would 
have been found worthy of death.! 

It has been said that the Jews found cause to charge Jesus with 
blasphemy in that He had wrought miracles in Hisown name. ‘He 
had performed many miracles, but never in any other name than His 
own.”? It is said that He had thus violated the law (Deut. xviii. 20). 
‘‘He that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet 
shall die”; for if to prophesy in the name of another god deserved 
death, equally so to perform any miracle or supernatural work in his 
name. But it may well be questioned whether, on this ground, He 
could have been tried for blasphemy. If He did not work His mira- 
cles expressly in the name of Jehovah, yet He ever affirmed that 
the power was not in Himself, but from God. (Compare John v. 
19, viii. 18.) Nor was He ever understood to work them by virtue 
of His own deity. Beholding what He did, the multitudes ‘‘ mar- 
velled and glorified God who had given such power unto men ” (Matt. 
ix. 8). And at His final entry into Jerusalem the ery of the people 
was, ‘‘ Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord.” 

We conclude, then, that upon no ground could the Jews, through 
their witnesses, convict Him of any ecclesiastical offense punishable 
with death. Neither for His Messianic claims, nor for the works by 
which He attested them, nor as a false prophet, could He be legally 
convicted of blasphemy. His violations of the Sabbath were not 
such as they could punish with severity, if at all. He had not denied 
the authority of the law, He had not spoken against Jehovah. If He 
had disturbed the public peace, punishment of this offense properly 
belonged to the Romans. Thus, upon the rule which He had Himself 
laid down (John xviii. 21), ‘‘ Ask them which heard me what I have 
said unto them,” He could not have been convicted. Only by His 
own testimony was He brought within the scope of the law. He 
was at last condemned upon His confession that He was the Christ 


1 In John v. 16, where it is said, ‘‘The Jews sought to slay Him because He had 
done these things on the Sabbath day,” the clause “sought to slay Him,” is omitted by 
Tischendorf. So Alford, Meyer, W. and H., and R. VY. 

2 Greenleaf, Test. of Evangelists, 524. 





| 
: 


Part VII.] GROUND OF CONDEMNATION. 515 


and the Son of God. This fact is very remarkable, and demands our 
attentive consideration. 

d. Ground of condemnation. A Jewish writer, Salvador, in his 
‘Histoire des Institutions de Mojse,”? commenting upon the trial 
of Jesus, attempts to show that He was tried fairly, and condemned 
legally. He spoke of Himself, says this writer, as God, and His 
disciples repeated it. This was shocking blasphemy in the eyes 
of the citizens. It was this, not His prophetic claims, which excited 
the people against Him. The law permitted them to acknowledge 
prophets, but nothing more. In answer to Caiaphas, He admits that 
He is the Son of God, this expression including the idea of God 
Himself. ‘*The Sanhedrin deliberates. The question already raised 
among the people was this: Has Jesus become God? But the senate 
having adjudged that Jesus had profaned the name of God by 
usurping it to Himself, a mere citizen, applied to Him the law of 
blasphemy (Deut. xiii., and xviii. 20), according to which every 
prophet, even he who works miracles, must be punished when he 
speaks of a God unknown to the Jews and their fathers; and the 
capital sentence was pronounced.” 

Had the accusation against Jesus, as asserted by Salvador, had re- 
spect simply to His assertion that He was the Son of God, and had 
He been condemned upon this ground only; however great the blind- 
ness and guilt in not recognizing His divine character, it could not be 
said that the court acted illegally. Such an assertion from the lips of 
any mere man was blasphemous. If a false prophet deserved to die, 
how much more he who made himself equal with God! Was it for 
this that He was, in fact, condemned? When nothing worthy of 
death could be proved against Him by the witnesses, Caiaphas ad- 
jured Him by the living God, ‘‘ Tell us whether thou be the Christ, 
the Son of God.” ? We cannot certainly determine how these two 
expressions, ‘‘the Christ,” and ‘‘the Son of God,” were connected in 
the mind of Caiaphas. It may be that he regarded them as of sub- 
stantially the same meaning, though it may be questioned how far the 
title, Son of God, was one of the customary titles of the Messiah at 
this time. Still, it had been so often and openly applied to Jesus, 
that we cannot well suppose Caiaphas ignorant of it. At the time of 
His baptism, John the Baptist testified of His Divine Sonship (John 
i. 34): ‘‘I saw and bare record that this is the Son of God.” Very 
soon after (verse 49), Nathanael thus avows his faith: “ Rabbi, thou 


1 Cited by Greenleaf, Test., 529, and by Dupin, Refutation, 41. 

2 Matt. xxvi. 68. According to Mark, ‘‘Art thou the Christ, the Son of the 
Blessed?*’ This adjuration, according to Jewish custom, was equivalent to putting the 
Lord under oath. Friedlieb, Archiol., 91. 


516 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL | 


art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.” Often was He 
thus addressed by evil spirits whom He cast out (Matt. viii. 29; Mark 
iii. 11, v. 7; Luke iv. 41, viii. 28). After the stilling of the tempest 
(Matt. xiv. 33), those in the ship said, ‘‘ Of a truth thou art the Son 
of God.” So was He addressed by Martha (John xi. 27): ‘‘I believe 
that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.” At His death the cen- 
turion and guard said (Mark xv. 39), ‘‘Truly this was the (a) Son of 
God.” Only in one instance, however, did Jesus directly claim for 
Himself this title (John ix. 35-37), although He often indirectly 
applied it to Himself. (So John xi. 4.) In like manner He re- 
peatedly speaks of God as His Father (John v. 17). 

Granting that this phrase, ‘‘Son of God,” was currently applied 
to men of great wisdom and piety, still, as Salvador admits, it could 
not have been so used by Caiaphas. If it did not, in its ordinary 
usage, imply participation of the Divine nature, it nevertheless was 
in this act of adjuration and was designed to be, a designation that 
distinguished the Lord from all other men. 

Perhaps Caiaphas, in his adjuration, purposely selected both titles, 
that in this way the Lord’s own conceptions of His Messianic dignity 
might be drawn out, and the way opened for further questions. The 
answer of Jesus, ‘‘ Thou hast said,” was an express affirmation, as if 
He had said, ‘‘I am,” and was regarded as blasphemy. It could 
. have been so only as it implied equality with God, or an assumption 
of the power and authority that belonged to Jehovah alone. That 
the Jews so understood it, is plain from their language (John xix. 7) 
to Pilate afterward. When they learned that in His teaching He 
presented Himself as one with the Father, or ‘‘made Himself equal 
with God” (John v. 18), this was a flagrant transgression of the 
law and a capital offense. The first of the ten commandments was, 
‘‘ Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” and for a man to make 
himself God, the equal of Jehovah, was a violation of this command, 
and a crime of the deepest dye. It was both blasphemy and treason, 
and hence the attempt of the Jews to kill Him upon the spot. A 
few months later they ‘‘ murmured at Him because He said, I am the 
Bread which came down from Heaven” (John vi. 41). When, a little 
later, He said, ‘‘ Before Abraham was, I am” (viii. 58), thus imply- 
ing a divine pre-existence, they took up stones to stone Him; and 
when afterward (x. 30) He still more plainly affirmed, ‘‘I and my 
Father are one,” they again sought to stone Him. They expressly 
declared, ‘‘ We stone thee for blasphemy, and because that thou, be- 
ing a man, makest thyself God.” 

4. The Denials of Peter. Let us now consider more fully the three 
denials of Peter. After the arrest, he, with ‘‘ another disciple,” fol- 





Part VII.] THE DENIALS OF PETER. 517 


lowed Jesus to the high priest’s palace. It is disputed who this 
other disciple was. Most regard it as a modest designation of John 
himself; others, of some unknown disciple. A. Clarke approves 
Grotius’ conjecture that it was the person at whose house Jesus 
had supped. Some have thought of Judas. This disciple, being 
known unto the high priest, was permitted to enter with those who 
were leading Jesus, but Peter was shut out. Perceiving this, he 
turned back and persuaded the woman that kept the door to admit 
Peter also. They seem then, or soon after, to have separated, as 
no mention is afterward made of the other disciple. Either before 
or soon after Peter’s entrance, the officer and soldiers made a fire of 
coals in the court. 

To understand the details that follow, it is necessary to have in 
mind the ordinary construction of oriental houses, which is thus de- 
scribed by Robinson:’ ‘‘ An oriental house is usually built around a 
quadrangular interior court, into which there is a passage (sometimes 
arched) through the front part of the house, closed next the street by 
a heavy folding gate with a smaller wicket for single persons, kept by 
a porter. In the text the interior court, often paved and flagged, 
and open to the sky, is the add, (translated in A. V., ‘ palace,’ ‘hall,’ 
and ‘court,’ but in R. Y., uniformly ‘ court’) where the attendants 
made a fire; and the passage beneath the front of the house, from the 
street to this court, is the rpoa’dcov (Mark xiv. 68) or ruddy (Matt. xxvi. 
71), both translated ‘porch.’ The place where Jesus stood before 
_ the high priest may have been an open room or place of audience on 
the ground floor in the rear or on one side of the court; such rooms, 
open in front, being customary.” In Smith’s Bible Dictionary (i. 838), 
the writer speaks of ‘‘an apartment called makad, open in front to 
the court, with two or more arches and a railing, and a pillar to sup- 
port the wall above. It was in achamber of this kind, probably one 
of the largest size to be found in a palace, that our Lord was ar- 
raigned before the high priest at the time when the denial of Him by 
St. Peter took place.” That the trial of Jesus actually occurred in 
such an interior apartment seems plain from Matt. xxvi. 69, where 
Peter is spoken of as sitting ‘‘ without in the palace,” or court, 
wo év 7p avy, implying that the Lord and His judges were in an 
inner room.? Mark (xiv. 66) speaks of Peter as ‘‘ beneath in the 
palace,” éy 77 atd\@ xérw, ‘‘in the court below.” ‘‘Not in the lower 
story of the house or palace,” says Alexander, ‘‘as the English ver- 
sion seems to mean, but in the open space around which it was 
built, and which was lower than the floor of the surrounding 
rooms.” 


1 Har., 225. 
2 See Meyer, in loco, 


518 


THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. 






[Part VIL. 


The questions connected with Peter’s denials, respect place, time, 


and persons. 


For convenient inspection, we give them in tabular 


























form: 
FIRST DENIAL. 
MatrHew. Mark. LugE. Joun. 
uestioner....... Maid servant. | Maid servant. | A certain maid. | Portress. 
DING Sra dinieisisle nae Indefinite. Indefinite. Indefinite. feces after en- 
te q 
RIACEN. sensicokies « Court. By fire in court. | By fire in court. Court 
Question......... “Thou also wast | “‘Thou also wast | * This man was | *“‘Art thou not 
with Jesus of | with Jesus of | alsowith Him.” | also one of this 
Galilee.” Nazareth.” man’s disci- 
: ples ¥” 
DCUIA a aeisiae cies “IT know not| “I know not,|‘*Woman, I/ “lam not.” 
what thou say-| neither under-| know Him 
est.” stand I, what} not.” 
thou sayest.”’ 
SECOND DENIAL. 
uestioner....... Another maid. | The maid. They. 
PNG Prieta c's ....| Indefinite. Indefinite. Af a a little | Indefinite. 
while. 
SPIRCEs a= iste siels n'a | EC OLCILZ Porch. Indefinite. By the fire. 
Question ........ “This was also | ‘‘ This is one of | “‘ Thou art also} “‘Art not thou 
with Jesus of | them.” of them.” also one of His 
Nazareth.” disciples ¢” 
Denial...........| With an oath,| He denied it} ‘Man, I am} “Iam not.” 
“T do not] again. not.” 
know the 
man.”* 
THIRD DENIAL. 
Questioner....... They that stood | They that stood | A man. A servant of the 
by. by. high pries 
kinsman o 
Malchus. 
aPmie teaiueisia'aieie’ts After awhile. | A little after. About the space | Indefinite. 
of an hour 
after. 
BIRGER ST ecratle eres Indefinite. Indefinite. Indefinite. Indefinite. 
Question......... “Surely thou| “Surely thou| “Of a truth| “Did I not see 
art also oneof| art one of, thisfellowalso| thee in the 
them, for thy| them, for thou} was with Him, arden with 
speech betray-| arta Galilean,| for he is a im?” 
eth thee.” and thy speech | Galilean.” 
agreeth there- 
to. 
Denial...........| With cursing | ‘I know not| ‘‘Man, I know} Peter then de 
and swearing,| the man of | not what thou) nied again. 
“T know not} whom youj sayest.” 


the man.” 


speak.”’ 








The points of place and time are closely connected with some points: 


already discussed. 


If the Lord was examined in the court of Annas 


and then taken to the house of Caiaphas, the first denial was in the 
court of Annas, and probably also the second, and the third only in 


a 8 


Part VII.] THE DENIALS OF PETER. 519 


that of Caiaphas. To this change of place there is a strong objection 
in the fact of the fire, which indicates one and the same court. If 
Annas and Caiaphas had the same court, this objection, indeed, does 
not hold, as there was no change of place. But if, as seems most 
probable, the examination was before Caiaphas, not Annas, all took 
place in his court. 

The exact relations in which the denials of Peter stand in order 
of time to the examination and trial of the Lord, it is impossible to 
determine. Probably the first denial and perhaps, also, the second — 
for there seems to have been but a short interval between them (Luke 
xxii. 58) — may have been during the preliminary examination before 
Caiaphas, or at least before the assembling of the Sanhedrin; and 
the third about an hour later, during the trial or at its close. The 
incident recorded by Luke (xxii. 61), that immediately after the third 
denial, as the cock crew, the Lord turned and looked upon Peter, is 
supposed by some to show that Jesus was now passing from one 
apartment to another, and as He passed, turned and looked upon Peter 
who was standing near by. But if so, when was this? Those who 
put the preliminary examination in the house of Annas, and Peter’s de- 
nials there, make this the departure to Caiaphas after the examination 
(Godet); others, the change from the apartment in Caiaphas’ palace 
where He had been examined, to that in which He was to be tried; 
others, His departure after the trial from Caiaphas to Pilate. But itis 
not necessary to suppose any change of place on the part of the Lord. 
As we have seen, the Sanhedrin probably assembled in a large room 
directly connected with the court and open in front, and therefore 
what was said in the one could, with more or less distinctness, be 
heard in the other. There is, then, no difficulty in believing that 
Jesus may have heard all the denials of Peter; and that now, as he 
denied Him for the third time, and the cock crew, He turned Himself 
to the court and looked upon the conscience-stricken apostle. Meyer, 
indeed, finds it psychologically impossible that he should have made 
these denials in the presence of Jesus; but in fact, Peter was not 
in His presence, though not far removed. Still, the probability is 
that this third denial was when the trial was over and the Lord was 
brought from the inner room into the court. 

A second question respects the persons. In regard to the first 
denial there are no special difficulties. How soon after Peter entered 
the court he was addressed by the damsel who kept the door, or por- 
tress, does not appear. It is probable that, as her attention had been 
specially drawn to him when he was admitted as a friend of John, 
she watched him as he stood by the fire; and that something in his 
appearance or conduct may have confirmed her suspicions that he was 


520 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


a disciple. The attention of all who heard her must now have been 
directed to Peter, but no one seems to have joined her in her accusa- 
tion. 

In regard to the second denial, there are several apparent discrep- 
ancies both as to the persons and the place. The former are described 
as ‘‘ another maid,” ‘‘ the (same) maid,” ‘‘ another person,” ‘‘ they.” 
But in the several narratives it is plain that it is not deemed impor- 
tant to specify who addressed Peter; the important point is his 
denials. The matter may very naturally be thus arranged: The damsel 
who first accused him, silenced for the time but not satisfied with 
his denial, speaks to another maid servant and points out Peter to 
her as one whom she knew or believed to be a disciple. Seeing him 
soon after in the porch or fore-court, for, in the agitation of his spirit 
he cannot keep still, she renews the charge that he is a disciple, and 
the other maid repeats it. Others, hearing the women, also join with 
them, perhaps dimly remembering his person, or now noting some- 
thing peculiar in his manner. That, under the circumstances and in 
the excitement of the moment, such an accusation, once raised, should 
be echoed by many, is what we should expect. During the confu- 
sion of this questioning, Peter returns again to the fire in the interior 

‘court where most were standing, and there repeats with an oath his 
denial. There is no necessity for transposing, with Ellicott, the first 
and second denials as given by John. 

The second denial, so energetically made, seems to have finally 
silenced the women, and there is no repetition of the charge for about 
the space of an hour. During this interval, Peter, perhaps the better 
to allay suspicion, joins in the conversation, and is recognized as a 
Galilean by his manner of speech. As most of the disciples of Jesus 
were Galileans, this again draws attention to him. Perhaps the 
kinsman of Malchus, who had been with the multitude and had seen 
him in the garden, and now remembers his person, begins the out- 
cry and the bystanders join with him; and the more that Peter’s very 
denials betray his Galilean birth. The charge, thus repeated by so 
many, and upon such apparently good grounds, threatens immediate 
danger, and Peter therefore denies it with the utmost vehemence, 
with oaths and cursings.? 

We have no datum to determine at what hour of the night these 
denials took place, except we find it in the cock-crowings. Mark 


1 For a recent discussion of these denials, see McClellan, Har., 494. He thinks 
that we cannot limit the acts of denial to three, and finds six; three in the court by the 
fire, and three in the porch. To the objection that the Lord foretold a threefold 
denial, he answers that ‘thrice’ is to be taken in an indefinite sense. See Gardiner 
Har., in /oco; Nebe, ii. 353, 


i i i i 


Part VII] ORDER OF EVENTS. 521 


(xiv. 68) relates that after the first denial the cock crew. All the 
Evangelists mention the third denial in connection with the second 
cock-crowing. Greswell (iii. 216) makes the first cock-crowing to 
have been about 2 A. m., and the second, about 3 a.m.’ But we do not 
know whether this second cock-crowing was at the end of the first 
examination, or during the formal trial, or at its close, and to de- 
termine when the Sanhedrin began its session. We cannot, how- 
ever, well place it later than 2 a.m. How long it continued we 
shall presently see. 

We may thus give the order of events: 

1. The Lord and His apostles leave the upper room an hour 
before midnight, and go to Gethsemane. 

2. The arrest in Gethsemane about midnight or a little after. 

3. He is taken to Annas, but no examination before him is 
recorded. 

4. He is soon taken to Caiaphas, and here is a brief preliminary 
examination, mentioned only by John, and after it followed the 
abuse by one of the high priest’s officers. 

5. The Sanhedrin assembles at one or two in the morning in the 
palace of Caiaphas, and the Lord is formally tried and condemned, 
and then abused by the members (Matt. xxvi. 67). 

6. The Sanhedrin, after a temporary adjournment, reassembles 
at break of day to determine how to bring Jesus before Pilate; and at 
this time His confession is repeated, but without a formal trial. This 
hearing only in Luke (xxii. 66). 

7. The Lord is taken to Pilate in the early morning. 


Fripay Mornine, 1l5tH Nisan, 7TH Aprit, 783. A.D. 30. 


After the Sanhedrin had pronounced Him guilty 
of blasphemy, and so worthy of death, it suspends its 
session to meet at break of day. During this interval Mart. xxvi. 67, 68. 
Jesus remains in the high priest’s palace, exposed to Marx xiv. 65. 
all the ridicule and insults of His enemies, who spit LUKE xxii. 63-65. 
upon Him, and smite Him. As soon as it is day Marv. xxvii. 1, 2. 
the Sanhedrin again assembles, and after hearing His Mark xv. 1. 
confession that He is the Christ, formally adjudges LUKE xxii. 66-71. 
Him to death. Binding Him, they led Him away to LUKE xxiii. 1. 
the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, that he may exe- 
eute the sentence. Judas Iscariot, learning the issue Marv. xxvii. 3-10. 
of the trial, and that Jesus is about to be put to Acrsi. 18,19. 
death, returns the money the chief priests have given 
him, and goes and hangs himself. 


1 So, in substance, Wieseler, 406; Lichtenstein, 422; McClellan. 


522 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VII. 


Condemned to death as a blasphemer, Jesus was now given 
up by the council to the abuse of His captors and of the crowd; 
and cruel personal violence was added to most contemptuous 
speech. Salvador (Jésus-Christ et sa Doctrine) denies that the 
council would have permitted Him to be so treated in its 
presence; but it is to be remembered that most of its members 
cherished the most bitter and vindictive feelings against Him, 
and in their fierce fanaticism thought that no mercy should 
be shown to one guilty of such a crime. (Compare Acts xxiii. 
2.) According to Matthew, the judges themselves seem to havé 
taken part in this abuse; but Luke speaks only of those that held 
Jesus. 

It has been inferred from Matt. xxvii. 1 and Mark xy. l, 
that there was asecond and later judicial session of the Sanhedrin 
than that at which Jesus was tried.'. Others suppose that the San- 
hedrin continued its session after the trial proper had ended, per- 
haps with a brief recess, having as the special subject of consulta- 
tion how the sentence pronounced against Jesus could be carried 
into effect.2 The language of these two Evangelists is not 
decisive as to the point. That which most implies a new and 
distinct session is the designation of time; in Matthew: “ When 
the morning was come, rpwiac 6€ yevouevne, all the chief priests,” 
etc.; in Mark: ‘“ And straightway in the morning,” evOéwe emi rd 
mpwi, etc. This allusion to the fact that it was morning, seems to 
have some special significance, and may refer to the fact that 
capital cases could not be legally tried in the night; and hence a 
morning session was necessary. ‘Capital cases were only to 
be handled by day.”* This is affirmed by Salvador (quoted by 
Greenleaf): “One thing is certain, that the council met again on 
the morning of the next day, or of the day after, as the law re- 
quires, to confirm or to annul the sentence; it was confirmed ” 
Neither Matthew nor Mark states that the place of session had 
been changed, though perhaps their language may intimate a 
meeting more largely attended.* 

1 Greswell, iii. 202; Friedlieb, 326; Godet. 

2 Meyer, Ellicott, Lichtenstein. 

8 Lightfoot; see Friedlieb, Archiiol., 95. 


4 Compare Mark xiv. 53 with xy. 1, in the latter case, ‘*the whole council” being 
expressly mentioned. 





ne 


Part VII.] FINAL ACTION OF THE SANHEDRIN. 523 


Our decision as to a second and distinct session of the San- 
hedrin will mainly depend upon the place we give to the account 
in Luke xxii. 66-71. Is this examination of Jesus identical 
with that first session of Matt. xxvi. 57-68, and of Mark xiv. 
53-65?' Against this identity are some strong objections: 
Ist. The mention of time by Luke: “As soon as it was day.” 
This corresponds well to the time of the morning session of Mat- 
thew and Mark, but not to the time when Jesus was first led be- 
fore the Sanhedrin, which must have been two or three hours 
before day. 2d. The-place of meeting: “They led Him into their 
council,” avynyayov avrov cic TO ouvedpwoy éavrov. This is rendered 
by some: ‘They led Him up into their council chamber,” or the 
place where they usually held their sessions.2?, Whether this council 
chamber was the room Gazith at the east corner of the court of 
the temple, isnot certain. Lightfoot (on Matt. xxvi. 3) conjectures 
that the Sanhedrin was driven from this its accustomed seat half 
a year or thereabout before the death of Christ. But if this 
were so, still the ‘“ Taberne,” where it established its sessions, 
were shops near the gate Shusan, and so connected with the 
temple. They went up to that room where they usually met.* 
3d The dissimilarity of the proceedings, as stated by Luke, 
which shows that this was no formal trial. There is here no 
mention of witnesses — no charges brought to be proved against 
Him. He is simply asked to tell them if He is the Christ (“ If 
thou art the Christ, tell us,” R. V.); and this seems plainly to 
point to the result of the former session. Then, having con- 
fessed Himself to be the Christ, the Son of God, He was con- 
demned to death for blasphemy. It was only necessary now 
that He repeat this confession, and hence this question is put 
directly to Him: “Art thou the Christ? tell us.” His reply, 
“Tf I tell you, ye will not believe; and if I also ask you, ye will 
not answer me, nor let me go,” points backward to his former 
confession. To His reply they only answer by asking, “ Art 


1 So Meyer, Alford, Lichtenstein, Ebrard, Keil. 

2 See Meyer. in loco; Rob., Lex., Art. cvvéSpiov; here ‘‘as including the place of 
meeting; the Sanhedrin as sitting in its hall.’’ So Keil, McClellan. 

® So Kraft, Greswell. See, however, against this, John xviii. 28, which implies 
that Jesus was led, not from the temple, but from the palace of Caiaphas to Pilate. This 
does not disprove the fact of a second session of the Sanhedrin, but shows that it was 
held at the same place as the first. 




























524 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


thou then the Son of God?” The renewed avowal that He 
is the Son of God, heard by them all from His own lips, opens 
the way for His immediate delivery into Pilate’s hands.’ 
4th. The position which Luke gives (xxii. 63-65) to the insults” 
and abuse heaped upon Jesus. There can be no doubt that they 
are the same mentioned by Matthew and Mark as occurring 
immediately after the sentence had been first pronounced. 

From all this it is a probable, though not a certain conclusion, 
that Luke (xxii. 66-71) refers to the same meeting of the Sanhe- 
drin mentioned by Matthew. (xxvii. 1) and Mark (xv. 1), and re- 
lates, in part, what then took place. (Alford thinks that Luke has 
confused things, and relates as happening at the second session — 
what really happened at the first.) This meeting was, then, a — 
morning session convened to ratify formally what had been done 
before with haste and informality. The circumstances under 
which its members had been earlier convened at the palace of 
Caiaphas, sufficiently show that the legal forms, which they were 
so scrupulous in observing, had not been complied with. The law 
. forbidding capital trials in the night had been broken; the place 
of session was unusual, if not illegal; perhaps the attendance, so 
early after midnight, had not been full. On these accounts it 
was expedient that a more regular and legal sitting should be 
held as early in the morning as was possible. At this nothing need 
be done but to hear the confession of Jesus, to pronounce sentence, 
and to consult in what manner it could best be carried into effect; 
for, although they had condemned Him, they had no power to 
exccute the sentence. To put Jesus to death, they must have at 
least the assent of Pilate. Their plans for obtaining this will 
appear as we proceed. Being again bound, He was led early in 
the morning before Pilate. 

There are two points connected with Judas that are in dis- 
pute: 1. His return of the money paid him for his treachery 
and the subsequent use of it; 2. The manner of his death. 

1. As soon as Judas saw that the Lord was condemned by 
the Sanhedrin, probably beholding Him as they led Him away 
to Pilate, he repented bitterly of his treachery. Taking the 
money, the price of his crime, he carried it back to the chief 


“ 





1 See Stier, vii. 335; Greswell, iii. 204. 


————-” Ye 


Part VIl.| JUDAS AND THE FIELD OF BLOOD. 525 


priests and elders, confessing his sin in betraying innocent blood. 
It is not necessary to suppose them all assembled together; some 
acted for the rest. It is not said where he found them, whether 
at the palace of Caiaphas, or at their own council chamber, or at 
some other chamber in the temple. If they were at the temple 
we have a ready explanation of the fact that “he cast down the 
pieces of silver in the temple and departed.”* That part of the 
temple in which he cast them, is defined as év 76 vag, which, 
according to the uniform usage of the term in the Gospels, can- 
not mean any thing else than the inner court or holy place, and 
only open to the priests.". Into this it was not lawful for him to 
enter, but he could approach the entrance and cast the silver 
within; or, perhaps in his remorse and despair forcing his way 
into the holy place, he cast it down at the feet of the priests, 
who, it may be, were there preparing to offer the morning 
sacrifice. 

Probably the money which had been paid to Judas had 
been taken from the treasury of the temple, and the priests and 
elders, unwilling to return to it the price of blood, determined to 
buy a field to bury strangers in. Peter (Acts i. 18) speaks as if 
Judas had himself bought it: “ Now this man purchased a field 
with the reward of iniquity.” Perhaps he may be here under- 
stood as speaking rhetorically, and as meaning only to say that 
the field was bought, not by Judas in person but with his 
money, the wages of his iniquity.” If so, the actual purchase of 
the field was doubtless made after the Lord’s crucifixion, as the 
time of the priests and elders was too much occupied upon that 
day to attend to such a transaction; and Matthew narrates it as 
taking place before the crucifixion, in order to finish all that 
pertained to Judas. Others make Judas to have purchased a 
field before his death with part of the money he had received, 
and in this field to have hanged himself; in this case, his death was 
probably not till some period after the crucifixion. Some say that 
the priests after his death, with the remainder of the money, pur- 
chased another,? and thus there were two fields, both called “ the 


1 See Greswell, iii. 219. 
2 Alexander, in /oco; Meyer on Actsi.18. Trench Synonyms, sub voce. 
3 See Greswell, iii. 220; Smith’s Bib. Dict., i. 15. 


526 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


field of blood,” Aceldama, but for different reasons: one as bought 
with the price of blood, the other as the place where Judas hanged 
himself. Itis said that ‘“ ecclesiastical tradition appears from the 
earliest times to have pointed out two distinct though not unva- 
rying spots as referred to in the two accounts.” Early travellers 
mention Aceldama as distinct from the spot where Judas hanged 
himself." Maundrell also (468) mentions two Aceldamas, one on 
the west side of the valley of Hinnom, and another on the east 
side of the valley of Jehoshaphat, not far distant from Siloa. To 
the latter Saewulf (42) refers as at the foot of Mount Olivet, a 
little south of Gethsemane. That two fields are referred to by 
the Evangelists, is doubtful, and the former solution of the dis- 
crepancy is to be preferred. 

“The field of blood” is still pointed out in the eastern part of ~ 
the valley of Hinnom. “ The tradition which fixes it upon this 
spot reaches back to the age of Jerome, and it is mentioned by 
almost every visitor of the Holy City from that time to the pres- 
ent day. The field or plat is not now marked by any boundary 
to distinguish it from the rest of the hillside.”? Hackett? ob- 
serves: “ Tradition has placed it on the Hill of Evil Counsel. It 
may have been in that quarter, at least, for the field belonged 
originally to a potter, and argillaceous clay is still found in the 
neighborhood. A workman in a pottery which I visited at Je- 
rusalem, said that all their clay was obtained from the hill 
over the valley of Hinnom.” A charnel house now in ruins, 
built over a cave in whose deep pit are a few bones much 
decayed, is still shown. Some would identify it with the tomb 
of Ananus mentioned by Josephus.‘ 

2. The manner of his death. It issaid by Matthew that, after 
he had cast down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed 
and went and hanged himself. It is not said whither he went, 
and, so far as here stated, the place of his death may have been 
away from the city. Some question has been raised as to the 
meaning of the term amfybaro — “hanged himself.” _Grotius 
and others understand it of a natural death, but one brought 
about by agony of conscience and remorse. But the great 
majority of interpreters understand it of a death by hanging 


1 So Maundeyille, Early Tray., 175. 8 Tl. Scrip., 267. See Baed., 230. 
2 Robinson, i. 354. 4 War, v. 12.2. So Barclay. 





Part V1I.J MANNER OF JUDAS’ DEATH. 527 


In the Vulgate : Adiens laqueo se suspendit. (Lightfoot insists that 
he was strangled by the devil.) But how is this statement to be 
reconciled with that of Peter (Acts i. 18), that, “falling head- 
long, he burst asunder in the midst—kai zpyvij¢ yevopevoc 
éhdxnoe péooc — and all his bowels gushed out?” De Quincey’ 
finds here only a figurative statement that “he came to utter 
and unmitigated ruin,” and died of a “broken heart.” But the 
language is obviously to be taken in its literal sense;? and the 
bursting asunder of Judas may readily have happened after he 
had hung himself. Such a thing as the breaking of a cord or a 
beam or bough of a tree is not unusual; or, at the moment when 
the body was about to be taken down, it may by accident or 
carelessness have fallen. Hackett,* referring to a suggestion 
that he may have hung himself upon a tree overhanging the 
yalley of Hinnom, says: “For myself, I felt, as I stood in the 
valley and looked up to the rocky terraces which hang over it, 
that the proposed explanation was a perfectly natural one. I 
was more than ever satisfied with it.” He found the precipice, 
by measurement, to be from twenty-five to forty feet in height, 
with olive trees growing near the edges and a rocky pavement 
at the bottom, so that a person who fell from above would prob- 
ably be crushed and mangled as well as killed. 4 

Meyer finds proof that Matthew, in his statement that Judas 
“hanged himself,” and Luke, in his report of Peter’s statement 
that he “burst asunder,” followed different traditions, in the fact 
that as self-murder was very unusual among the Jews, Peter 
could not have passed it by in silence. But, as the falling and 
bursting asunder were subsequent to the hanging, and presup- 
posed it; and as the event had taken place but a few days before, 
and was well known to all present, there was no necessity that 
he should give all the details; especially as his purpose was to 
admonish the apostles by this fearful judgment to use all caution 
in the nomination of his successor. 

Matthew refers to the purchase of the field as the fulfillment 


1 Essay upon Judas Iscariot. 

2 Meyer, in loco. 3 Tl. Serip., 266. 

4 As to the various traditional accounts of Judas’ death, see Hofmann’s Leben 
Jesu, 333. Bynaeus (ii. 431) gives a full statement of the various opinions up to his day. 
Areulf (Harly Travels, 4), A.D. 700, speaks of being shown the large fig tree from the top 
of which Judas suspended himself. 


528 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL. 


oi a prediction of Jeremy the prophet. Many recent writers 
find here an error of reference, the passage being found in Zech- 
ariah (xi. 12, 13). For the solutions we must refer to the com- 
mentators. ‘The simplest explanation,” says Riddle, “is that 
the name ‘Jeremiah’ is applied to the whole book of the proph- 
ets, since the Jews placed that prophet first.” 

Our purpose does not lead us to inquire into the motives that 
impelled Judas to betray his Lord. The theory, however, advo- 
cated by many,’ that, sharing the general Jewish expectations as 
to the Messianic kingdom, and fully believing Jesus to be the 
Messiah, he had no intention of imperilling His life, but wished 
only to arouse Him to direct and positive action, cannot be sus- 
tained. If, knowing the supernatural powers of Jesus, he had 
no fears that He could sufier evil from the hands of His enemies, 
and delivered Him into the power of the Jewish authorities in 
order that He might be forced to assert His Messianic claims, 
why should he bargain with them for thirty pieces of silver? 
He could in many ways have accomplished this end, without 
‘taking the attitude of a traitor. The statements of the Evangel- 
ists about his covenant with the chief priests, his conduct at the 
arrest, his return of the money, the words of Peter respecting 
him, and especially the words of the Lord, “Good were it for 
that man if he had never been born,” conclusively show that he 
sinned, not through a mere error of judgment while at heart 
hoping to advance the interests of his Master, but with deliber. 
ate perfidy, designing to compass His ruin.? 


Fripay Mornine, 15TH Nisan, 7TH APRIL, 783. 
ADT 3e- 


The members of the Sanhedrin who lead Jesus to JOHN xviii. 28-33. 
Pilate refuse to enter the judgment hall lest they be de- 
filed; and thereupon he comes out to them and asks the 
nature of the accusation. They charge Him with being a 
malefactor, and Pilate directs them to take Him and judge 
Him themselves. As they cannot inflict a capital punish- LUKE xxiii. 24. 
ment, they bring the charge of sedition; and Pilate, re- Mark xy. 2. 
entering the judgment hall and calling Jesus, examines JOHN xyiii, 33-38, 
Him as to His Messianic claims. Satisfied that Heis inno- Marr. xxvii. 11. 








1 De Quincey, Whately. 
® See Winer, i. 635; Ebrard, 524; Christian Review, July, 1855; Langen, wu 





Part VII.] 


cent, Pilate goes out and affirms that he finds no fault in 
Him. The Jews renewing their accusations, to which 
Jesus makes no reply, aud mentioning Galilee, Pilate 
sends Him to Herod, who was then at Jerusalem; but 
Jesus refuses to answer his questions, and is sent back to 
Pilate. The latter now resorts to another expedient. He 
seats himself upon the judgment seat, and, calling the 
chief priests and elders, declares to them that neither 
himself nor Herod has found any fault in Him. Accord- 
ing to custom, he will release Him. But the multitude 
beginning to ery that he should release Barabbas not 
Jesus, he leaves it to their choice. During the interval 
while the people are making their choice, his wife sends 
to him a message of warning. The people, persuaded by 
the priest and elders, reject Jesus and choose Barabbas, 
and Pilate in vain makes several efforts to change their 
decision. At last he gives orders that Jesus be scourged 
previous to crucifixion. This is done by the soldiers with 
mockery and abuse; and Pilate, going forth, again takes 
Jesus and presents Him to the people. The Jews con- 
tinue to demand His death, but upon the ground that He 
made Himself the Son of God. Terrified at this new 
charge, Pilate again takes Jesus into the hall to question 
Him butreceivesnoanswer. Pilate stillstrives earnestly to 
save Him, but is met by the cry that he is Cesar’s enemy. 
Yielding to fear, he ascends the tribunal, and, calling for 
water, washes his hands in token of his own innocence, and 
then gives directions that He be taken away and crucified. 
As He comes forth, he presents Him to them as their 
King. They ery ‘‘ Crucify Him, Crucify Him,,’ and He is 
led away to the place of crucifixion. 


THE LORD LED BEFORE PILATE. 


529 


MAtTT, xxvii. 12-14. 
Mark xv. 3-5. 
LUKE xxiii. 5-12. 


Matt. xxvii. 15-18. 
Marx xy. 6-10. 
LUKE xxiii. 13-17. 


JOHN xviii. 39, 40. 
Matt. xxvii. 19. 


MATT. xxvii. 20-23. 
Mark xy. 11-14. 
LUKE xxiii. 18-25. 
Matt. xxvii. 26-30. 
Mark xv. 15-19. 
JOHN xix. 1-4. 
JOHN xix. 5-12. 


Mart, xxvii. 24-25. 


JOHN xix. 13-16. 


The time when the Lord was taken before Pilate cannot be 


exactly defined. There are two sources of information; Roman 
usage, and the statements of the Evangelists. As a rule, the 
Roman courts did not open before sunrise, nor was judgment 
pronounced till after six o’clock a.m. The Evangelists give 
only general notices of the time: Matthew, ‘(when the morning 
was come”; Mark, “And straightway in the morning”; John, 
“and it was early.” All use the same designation of time, 
«pwia OY zpwi, which may include all the time from 3 to 6 a.M. 
{In this indefiniteness much room is given to difference of opinion. 
Lichtenstein and M. and M. put the leading of the Lord to 
Pilate soon after 3 o’clock; but most later — Ewald, an hour 
defore sunrise; McClellan, Jones, a little before sunrise; Farrar, 


later, about 7. Those who put it before sunrise, suppose that 
28 


% 


530 ' THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


Pilate, having been told that a noted prisoner would be brought 
before him, took his judicial seat before the usual hour. 

It is not easily determined whether the Pratorium or judg- 
ment hall, to which Jesus was taken, was in the palace of Herod 
the Great, and then occupied by Pilate, or in the fortress 
Antonia, or in a palace near it. That the Roman governors 
sometimes used Herod’s palace as headquarters, appears from 
Josephus, where Florus is said to have done so; and afterward 
mention is made of his leading out the troops from the royal 
residence’. The palace of Herod at Caesarea was used in like 
manner (Acts xxiii. 35). The palace at Jerusalem was situated on 
the north side of Mount Sion, and was a magnificent building of 
marble, with which, according to Josephus, the temple itself bore 
no comparison.” It is to be distinguished from the palace of Solo- 
mon, which was lower down on the side of the mount, and near 
the temple, and where Agrippa afterward built.* That it was 
used by Pilate when he visited Jerusalem is very probable.* 
Those who place the judgment hall at the fortress Antonia refer 
.in proof to John xix. 13, where it is said that Pilate “sat down 
in the judgment seat, in a place that is called the Pavement, 
but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.”*® This Pavement is supposed to 
have been between the fortress Antonia and the western portico 
of the temple, and identical with that mentioned by Josephus.°® 
Pilate was thus sitting upon the highest point of the large temple 
area, where what he did was plainly visible to all present. But 
the fact that the outer court of the temple was “paved through- 
out” 7 does by no means show that Pilate here erected his 
tribunal. Lightfoot (in loco) argues at some length to show 
that this Pavement was the room Gazith in the temple, where 
the Sanhedrin sat, and that as the Jews would not go to Pilate’s 
judgment hall, he went to theirs. But Greswell observes that 
“to suppose that the tribunal of Pilate could have been 
placed in any court of the temple, either would be palpably 


1 War, ii. 14. 8; ii. 15. 5. 

2 War, i. 21.1; v. 4.4. 

8 Josephus, Antiq., viii. 5. 2; xx. 8. 11. 

4 So Meyer, Winer, Alford, Friedlieb, Lewin. Ewald (vy. 14) supposes this palace 
to have been reserved for the use of Herod’s heirs, when they came to the capital. 

56 Wieseler, 407; T. G. Lex., Gabbatha. 

6 War, vi. 1. 8; and vi. 3. 2. 

7 Josephus, War, v. 5. 2. 





Part VII.] THE TRIAL BEFORE PILATE. o31 


absurd.” We must then conclude, that this Pavement was 
a movable one, like that which Suetonius mentions when he 
says that Julius Cesar took with him pieces of marble ready 
fitted that they might be laid down at any place, and the judg- 
ment seat be placed upon them; or, which is more probable, that 
it was the open paved space before the palace of Herod. (So 
Riehm, 624.) The latter view is confirmed by Josephus,’ for 
Florus, when he had fixed his quarters in the palace, erected 
his tribunal in front of it, and there gathered the chief men of 
the city before him. The judge seems to have been at liberty 
to place his tribunal where he pleased, and Pilate on one occasion 
did so in the great circus.” We consider it then most probable 
that all the judicial proceedings before Pilate were at the palace 
of Herod upon Mount Sion.* 

Pilate, being informed that members of the Sanhedrin had 
brought a criminal before him, and of their unwillingness to enter 
the palace, goes out to meet them. The ground of their unwill- 
ingness has been already considered. It was plainly the purpose 
of the priests and elders to obtain at once from Pilate a confirm- 
ation of their sentence, without stating the grounds upon which 
He had been condemned; but this plan was wholly baffled by his 
question: “What accusation bring ye against this man?’ 
Whether Pilate asked this question from a sense of justice, not 
thinking it right to condemn any man to death without knowing 
his offense; or whether he already knew who the prisoner was, 
and that He had been condemned upon ecclesiastical grounds, 
we cannot determine. We can scarce doubt, however, that he 
had some knowledge of Jesus, of His teaching, works, and 
character. Without troubling himself about ecclesiastical ques- 
tions, he would closely watch all popular movements; and he 
could not overlook a man who had excited so much of public atten- 
tion. If, as is most probable, he was in Jerusalem at the time 
of the Lord’s public entry, he must have heard how He was 


1 War, ii. 14. 8. See T. G. Lex., where it is denied to be portable. 

2 Josephus, War, ii. 9. 3. 

8 Winer, ii. 29; Greswell, iii. 225; Tobler, Top., i. 222. Many, however, place the 
judgment hall in the castle Antonia; so Williams, Barclay, Godet,M.and M. Langen 
thinks that Pilate was at this time at Antonia, though the Procurators sometimes occupied 
Herod’s palace. The point is of interest only in its bearings on the site of the sepulchre, 
and the direction of the Via Dolorosa. 


532 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


hailed by the multitude as King of the Jews; and the fact that 
he placed a part of the Roman cohort at the disposal of the 
priests when about to arrest Him, shows that they must have 
communicated to him their design. Some, however, think that 
Pilate would not have asked them the question about the nature 
of His offense, if he had the evening before placed his soldiers 
a: their service to aid in the arrest. (See Baumlein on John 
xviii. 3.) It is possible that this was the act of the commander 
of the cohort without the knowledge of Pilate. But, however 
this may have been, it is plain that he was by no means dis- 
posed to be a mere tool in the hands of the priests and elders to 
execute their revengeful plans. Vexed at his question, they re- 
ply, almost contemptuously: “If He were not a malefactor, we 
would not have delivered Him up unto thee.” It is as if they 
had said: ‘We have tried Him, and found Him to be a male- 
factor; there is no need of any further judicial examination. 
Rely upon us that He is guilty, and give us without more delay 
the power to punish Him.’ 

_ It is not certain what force is to be given to the word, 
“malefactor,” + but apparently His accusers design to designate 
Jesus as one who had broken the civil laws, and therefore was 
amenable to the civil tribunals. By the use of this general 
term they conceal the nature of His offense, which was purely 
ecclesiastical. They had condemned Him for blasphemy. But 
for this Pilate would not put Him to death — probably he would 
not entertain the case at all; and, as they knew not what other 
crime to lay to His charge, they present Him as a malefactor. 
This vague and artful reply displeases Pilate, who is, beside, 
touched by the cool effrontery of the council in demanding that 
he shall, without examination, ratify their sentence; and he an- 
swers tartly: “Take ye Him and judge Him according to your 
law.” It 1s as if He had said: If you can judge, you can also 
execute; but if I execute, 1 shall also judge. This answer forces 
them to confess that they have no power to put Him to death; 
and shows them that, if they would accomplish their purpose, 
they must bring some direct and definite charge, and one of 
which Pilate would take cognizance. They therefore now begin 


1 Kaxoy wowwv, Tischendorf, Alford, W. and H. 





a 
a 


Part VII.] JESUS SENT TO HEROD. 533 


to accuse him of perverting the nation, of forbidding to give 
tribute to Cesar, and of saying that He Himself was Christ, a 
king (Luke xxiii. 2). These were very serious accusations, be- 
cause directly affecting Roman authority, and such as Pilate was 
bound to hear and judge. 

Up to this time the accusers of Jesus and Pilate had been 
standing without the Pretorium. According to Roman law, the 
examination might take place within the Pretorium, but the 
sentence must be pronounced in public without. Entering it, 
Pilate calls Jesus and demands of Him, “ Art thou the King of 
the Jews?” The Synoptists give simply this reply: “Thou 
sayest,” or ‘I am”; but John relates the reply in full, in which 
Jesus describes the nature of His kingdom (xviii. 33-38). The 
effect of this conversation upon Pilate was very great. He 
saw at once that Jesus was no vulgar inciter of sedition, no 
ambitious demagogue or fanatical zealot, and that the kingdom 
of which He avowed Himself to be the king, was one of truth 
and not of force. At worst, He was only a religious enthusiast, 
from whose pretensions Cesar could have nothing to fear; and he 
determines to save Him, if possible, from the hands of His 
enemies. Taking Jesus with Him, he goes out and declares to 
them that he finds no fault in Him. This, probably unexpected, 
exculpation on his part only makes them “the more fierce,” and 
they renew the charge that He stirreth up the people throughout 
all Judea and Galilee, and even to Jerusalem (Luke xxiii. 5). 
Mark (xv. 3) says: ‘And the chief priests accused Him of many 
things.” Galilee may have been thus mentioned because the 
Galileans were prone to sedition. To all these accusations 
Jesus answers nothing, so that His silence makes even Pilate to 
marvel. The incidental mention of Galilee suggests to the 
governor that he might relieve himself from responsibility by 
sending Him to Herod Antipas, who was then in the city, and unto 
whose jurisdiction, as a Galilean, Jesus rightfully belonged. He 
accordingly sends Him to Herod, and hopes that he is now quit of 
the matter; or, if Herod should decline jurisdiction, that he 
would express some opinion as to his guilt or innocence. The 
chief priests and scribes follow Him, that they may renew their 
accusations before the new judge. 


534 THE LIFE OF OUR LURD. [Part VIL — 


By Herod the Lord was gladly received, as he had long 
desired to see Him, and hoped that He would now work some 
miracle before him. But to all the king's questions He an- 
swered nothing, nor did He reply to the accusations of His 
enemies. Angry at His continued silence, and doubtless inter- 
preting it as a sign of contempt, Herod and his soldiers mock 
Him with pretended homage, and, clothing Him in a gorgeous 
robe, send Him back to Pilate.’ His return so attired was a 
very intelligible sign to Pilate that Herod, who from his position 
must have known His history, had no knowledge of any seditious 
practices in Galilee, and regarded Him as a harmless man, 
whose Messianic pretensions were rather to be ridiculed than 
severely punished. This sending of Jesus by Pilate to Herod 
was understood by the latter, and probably designed by the 
former, as a mark of respect and good-will; and was the means 
of restoring friendship between them, which had been broken, 
perhaps by some question of conflicting jurisdiction. Where 
Herod took up his residence when in the city, is not known. If 
Pilate occupied the fortress Antonia, Herod would doubtless oc- 
cupy his father’s palace. It is not probable that both occupied 
the latter together, as some suppose.* Possibly he now made his 
abode at the old palace of the Maccabees.‘ In either case, the 
distance was not great, and but little time was spent in going to 
and returning from Herod. 

After Jesus was brought back to Pilate, the latter calls 
together “the chief priests and the rulers and the people” 
(Luke xxiii. 13). He now designs to pronounce Him innocent 
and end the trial, and therefore seats himself upon his judgment 
seat (Matt. xxvii. 19). There was a custom that at this feast a 
prisoner chosen by the people should be released from punish- 
ment. Asto the origin of this custom, nothing definite is known. 
From the language of the Synoptists— kata éoprjy —it has 

1 Some would make this a white robe, such as candidates for office were accustomed 
to wear, and chieftains when they went into battle. Thus robed, He appeared as a can- 
didate for the honor of the king of the Jews. So Friedlieb, Archiol., 109: Langen; 
Riggenbach makes it the white vestment of the priest; contra, Meyer; in Vulgate, rele 
ee 2 Some would trace the origin of this quarrel to the incident mentioned bi Luke 
xilf.1. See Greswell, iii. 26. 


3 Lichtenstein, 432. 
4 Josephus, Antiq., xx. 8. 11. 





Part VII.] JESUS AND BARABBAS. 535 


been inferred that at each of the feasts a prisoner was released.! 
John, however, confines it to the Passover, and it might have 
had some special reference to the release of the people from 
Egyptian bondage. No traces of it are to be found in later Jew- 
ish writings. It may possibly have been established by the 
Romans as a matter of policy, but more probably it was of Jew- 
ish origin and continued by the Roman governors.” Whether 
Pilate had this custom in mind when he took his seat upon the 
tribunal, is not certain; but his words (Luke xxiii. 16) strongly 
imply this, as does also the fact that he had gathered the people 
together with the chief priests and rulers. Ascending the tri- 
bunal, he formally declares that, having examined Jesus, he had 
found no fault in Him, neither had Herod, to whom he had 
sent Him; and after chastising Him he will therefore release 
Him. It seems from the scope of the narrative that he intended 
to chastise Jesus, thus to propitiate the priests, and then to re- 
lease Him under the custom without further consulting the peo- 
ple. In this way, apparently, Pilate thought to satisfy all: the 
people, by releasing Him; the priests and elders, by chastising 
Him; and himself, by delivering Him from death. But he sat- 
isfied none. The people, reminded of their claim, began to 
clamor for it; but they did not demand that Jesus should be re- 
leased. To satisfy the priests and rulers His chastisement was 
far too light a punishment. The cry is raised, “ Away with this 
man, and release unto us Barabbas.” Pilate, who knew how well 
affected the people at large had been to Jesus, cannot believe 
that they will reject Him and choose Barabbas; and he therefore 
accepts the alternative, and leaves them to elect between the two. 

Of this Barabbas, son of Abbas, little is known. According 
to some authorities, the true reading (Matt. xxvii. 16, 17) is 
Jesus Barabbas.* From the statements of the Evangelists re- 
specting him, it appears that he was one of that numerous and 
constantly growing party who detested the Roman rule, and 
who afterward gained such notoriety as the Zealots. In com- 
pany with others, he had stirred up an insurrection in the city, 
and had committed murder (Mark xv. 7; Luke xxii. 19). John 


’ 1 Friedlieb, Archiol., 110. 
; 2 Winer, ii. 202; Hofmann, 360. 
8 So Meyer, Ewald; and formerly, Tischendorf; contra, Alford, W. and H. 
































536 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VII 


speaks of him as a robber also; but this crime was too common 
to attract much attention or bring upon its perpetrator much 
odium. Josephus,' speaking of Florus, says that “he did all 
but proclaim throughout the country that every one was at lib- 
erty to rob, provided he might share in the plunder.” It is re- 
markable that Barabbas was confessedly guilty of the very crime. 
' with which the priests and rulers had falsely charged Jesus — 
that of sedition; and no plainer proof of their hypocrisy could 
be given to the watchful Pilate than their efforts to release the 
former and to condemn the latter. And this result it was easy for 
them to effect; for the tide of popular feeling ran very strong in 
favor of national independence, and one who had risen up against — 
the Romans and had shed blood in the attempt, was deemed 
rather a hero and a patriot than a murderer. On the other 
hand, Jesus, so far from encouraging the rising enmity to 
Roman rule, had always inculcated obedience and submission — 
teachings ever unpalatable to a subject nation. It is probable, 
too, that most of those present were citizens of Jerusalem 
rather than pilgrims from other parts of the land; and, if 
there were some from Galilee, that they did not dare, in opposi-- 
tion to the rulers, to express openly their wishes. 

While waiting for the people to come to a decision, he re- 
ceives the message from his wife mentioned by Matthew (xxvii. 19). 
Nothing is known of her but her name, which tradition gives as 
Procla, or Claudia Procula.? This dream was generally regarded 
by the fathers as supernatural, and by most ascribed to God, but: 
by some to Satan who wished to hinder the Lord’s death.* This 
message would naturally tend to make Pilate more anxious to 
release ‘that just man,” even if he did not ascribe to the dream 
a divine origin.‘ 

The Synoptists agree that Pilate made three several attempts 
to persuade the people to release Jesus, though the order of the 
attempts is not the same in all. The events may be thus 
arranged: Pilate presents to the people the two, Jesus and 


1 War, ii. 14. 2. 

2 Winer, ii. 262; Hofmann, 340. 3 See Jones, Notes, 359. 

4 Lewin (129) finds in this circumstance a proof that the locality was Pilate’s ordl- 
nary residence, the palace of Herod; and that the charge against Jesus was brought at a 
early an hour that he was aroused from his slumbers to hear it, 


Part VIl.] THE PEOPLE CHOOSE BARABBAS. 537 


Barabbas, between whom they are to choose. A little interval 
follows, during which he receives his wife’s message. He now 
formally asks the people whom they wished to have released 
(Matt. xxvii. 21; Mark xv. 9; Luke xxiii. 16-18). They answer, 
Barabbas. Pilate, hoping that by changing the form of the 
question he could obtain an answer more in accordance with his 
wishes, says: ‘“‘ What shall I do then with Jesus which is called 
Christ ?” (Matt. xxvii. 22; Mark xv. 12. Luke xxiii. 20 does 
not give the question; but the answer shows that it must have 
been the same as in Matthew and Mark.) To this they reply, 
“Let Him be crucified.” Alexander (on Mark xv. 13) suggests 
that the cry ‘“Crucify Him” arose from the fact that, as 
Barabbas by the Roman law would have been crucified, Jesus 
should now stand in his stead and bear his punishment. Bynaeus 
(ili. 118) explains it on the ground that crucifixion was the usual 
punishment of sedition, of which He was accused. But we can 
scarce doubt that it was first raised by the Sanhedrists, who 
through this punishment would both gratify their own hatred and 
better cast the responsibility of His death on the Romans. Pi- 
late now sees that not only do the people reject Jesus, but that 
they insist upon the most severe and ignominious punishment. 
He had proposed chastisement; they call for crucifixion. He 
had not anticipated this, and will reason with them. He there- 
fore asks: “Why, what evil hath He done?” (Matt. xxvii. 23; 
Mark xy. 14). Luke (xxiii. 22) adds: “I have found no cause 
of death in Him, I will therefore chastise Him and let Him go.” 
This judicial declaration of His innocence and attempt to substi- 
tute the milder punishment, only cause the people to cry out the 
louder, ‘‘ Let Him be crucified.” 

John (xviii. 39, 40) sums up the narrative very briefly, and 
gives no details. He omits the sending to Herod and states only 
the result of the popular choice. 

The great and rapid change in public feeling in regard to 
Jesus which four or five days had brought, would appear incred- 
ible did we not find many analogous cases in history. The 
thoughtlessness and fickleness that characterize a populace are 
proverbial. Besides, we here find special causes in operation to 
bring about this change. The multitude that shouted “ Hosanna 

23* 


538 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


to the Son of David” on the day of His triumpha: entry, doubt. 
less expected that He would immediately assert His kingly 
claims, and take a position before the public corresponding to — 
His high dignity. But so far from this, He reappears the next 
day, not as a prince but as a teacher; He does nothing answer- — 
ing to their expectations; He passes much of His time in seclu- 
sion at Bethany, and the excitement of His entry dies away. 
Still, He has a powerful hold on the popular mind as a prophet 
and worker of miracles; and this is recognized by the rulers in 
the manner in which they effect His arrest, and the haste with 
which they press on the trial. But He puts forth no miraculous 
power against His enemies; He offers no resistance; He is 
insulted and grossly abused, and complains not. How were 
they mistaken in thinking that He could be the Messiah, and 
fulfill the national hopes, and overcome the resolute Roman! 
But it was His conviction as a blasphemer that turned the heart 
of the people against Him. The chief priests, the elders, the 
scribes, all those in whom they trusted and who guided public 
_ opinion, were busy in declaring that He had blasphemed in the 
presence of the whole Sanhedrin. He assumed to be something 
more than the Messiah whom they expected — to be even the 
Son of God. All His teachings, all His miracles are straight- 
way forgotten. He is a blasphemer, He must die. 

It may be also, as has been said, that most of those that 
cried “Crucify Him” were citizens of Jerusalem who, under 
the influence of the hierarchy, had never been well inclined 
toward Him, and who do not seem to have joined in the hosan- 
nas and rejoicings upon the day of His entry. 

From the Synoptists it would appear that, after the failure 
of the attempts to induce the multitude to release Jesus, Pilate, 
despairing of success, washed his hands before the people, and 
then gave Him up to be scourged and crucified (Matt. xxvii. 26; 
Mark xv. 15). Luke (xvii. 16) gives Pilate’s words: “I will 
therefore chastise Him and release Him,” but says nothing of 
any scourging. (It is in question what is meant by “chastise ” 
here — traidebw. Some say it is equivalent to scourge; so T. 
G. Lex.; but Meyer says: “what kind of chastisement is left 
indefinite.” Verse 17 is omitted by W. and H. and Tisch.) But 





eo: 


Part VII.] THE SCOURGINGS. 539 


John (xix. 4-12) relates other and apparently subsequent attempts 
to save Him, placing them after and in connection with the scourg- 
ing. Was He, then, twice scourged? This is affirmed by some 
who regard the scourging of John (xix. 1-3) as designed to 
gratify the elders and priests, and to excite popular compassion;' 
but that mentioned by the Synoptists as the scourging usually 
inflicted before crucifixion. But this is improbable (so Luthardt). 
That scourging generally preceded the crucifixion appears from 
Josephus.? This scourging was excessively severe, the leathern 
thongs being often loaded with lead or iron, and cutting through 
the flesh even to the bone, so that some died under it. But the 
Lord having been once scourged, there seems no reason why it 
should be repeated, nor is it likely that Pilate would have per- 
mitted it if he could have prevented it. 

If, then, Jesus was scourged but once, and the accounts of 
the Synoptists and of John refer to the same event, why did 
Pilate now permit it? Was it that finding himself unable to 
save Jesus, and having no further expedient, he gives up the 
struggle, and sends him away to be scourged as preliminary 
to His death?* Or did he permit it hoping that through the 
milder punishment he might awaken pity, and thus rescue Him 
from death?*® It is not easy to decide as to Pilate’s motives. 
He had early offered to chastise Jesus and then release Him; 
but this the multitude refused, and demanded His crucifixion. 
It does not, then, seem probable that He could hope that the 
mere sight of Jesus suffering this punishment could so awaken 
their pity as to change their determination.® And why, if this 
were his purpose, should Jesus be taken into the common hall, 
or Pretorium, and be subjected to the insults and mockery of 
the soldiers? We infer then, that Pilate, having yielded to the 
priests and rulers, sent Him to be scourged as preliminary to 
His crucifixion, which was done by the soldiers in their usual 


1 So Bleek, Brtickner in DeWette, Nebe, ii. 80. 

2 War, ii. 14.9, and v. 11.1. See Winer, i. 677; Friedlieb, Arch., 114. 

3 As to flagellation among the Jews, see Ainsworth on Deut. xxv. 1-3. 

# Bynaeus, Stier, Krafft, Ellicott. 

5 Meyer, Sepp. Alford, Jones, Tholuck, Godet. 

6 It is not certain whether He was scourged in the Pretorium in the court, or 
without it and in front of it, where the tribunal was placed. The words of Matthew and 
Mark impiy the iatter; so Meyer, Lange. But if He was scourged but once, it would 
seem from John xix. 4 that it was done in the Pretorium; so Bynaeus. 





540 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


cruel way; and that, beholding Him bloody from the scourge, — 
clothed with the purple robe, and wearing the crown of thorns, 
his own compassion was awakened and he resolved to make one — 
last effort to deliver Him from death. He therefore leads Him 
forth, and after an emphatic declaration for the third time that 
he finds no fault in Him, presents Him to the people, saying, — 
“Behold the man.” He hoped that the sight of one so meek, — 
so helpless, so wretched, would touch the hearts of all as it had 
touched his own. Stier gives rightly the meaning of his words: 
“Ts this man a king? an insurgent? a man to be feared, or 
dangerous? How innocent and how miserable! Is it not 
enough?” It is probable, as said by Jones, that as He wore the 
crown of thorns and purple robe, so He also bore in His hand 
the reed. But nothing could touch the hearts of His embit- 
tered enemies. As they saw Him, the chief priests and officers — 
raised anew the cry, “Crucify Him, crucify Him.” Itis not — 
said that the people at large joined in it; and perhaps for a 
time, through fear or pity, they were silent. 

Angry at the implacable determination of the rulers that 
Jesus should be crucified, Pilate tauntingly responds to the ery, 
“Take ye Him and crucify Him, for I find no fault in Him.” 
Lardner (i. 54) paraphrases these words: “You must crucify 
Him then yourselves, if you can commit such a villany, for I — 
cannot. He appears to me innocent, as I have told you already, — 
and I have now punished Him as much as He deserves.” 
(Godet, ii. 374.) The Jews now perceived that Pilate, knowing 
that the charge of sedition was baseless, and deeply sympathizing 
with Jesus, would not put Him to death; and were compelled to — 
return to the original charge of blasphemy upon which he was 
condemned. ‘ We have a law and by our law He ought to die, 
because He made Himself the Son of God.” This gives a new 
turn to the accusation; they had charged Him with saying that 
He was Christ a King, but here is far more (Godet). This men- 
tion of the fact that Jesus made Himself the Son of God, had a ~ 
power over Pilate who now heard of it for the first time, which — 
the Jews little anticipated. Was then his prisoner, whose 
appearance, words, and conduct had so strangely and so deeply 
interested him, a divine being? Full of fear he returns to the 


Part VII.] REJECTED BY THE JEWS. 541 


judgment hall and commands Jesus to be brought, and demands, 
“ Whence art thou?” His silence at first, and still more His 
answer afterward, confirmed Pilate in his determination to release 
Him, and he may probably have taken some open step toward it. 
But the rulers will not thus give up their victim. They begin 
to threaten that if he release Him he thereby shows that he is 
Czsar’s enemy, and that they will accuse him before the emperor. 
Pilate now perceives the danger of his position. Such an accu- 
sation he must, at any cost, avoid. His administration would 
not, in many respects, bear a close scrutiny; and the slightest 
suspicion that he had shown favor to a claimant of the Jewish 
throne, falling into the ear of the jealous and irritable Tiberius, 
would have endangered, not only his office but his life. Such 
peril he could not meet. The shrewd elders and priests, who 
knew the selfish weakness of his character, pressed their advan- 
tage, and Pilate dared do no more. Jesus must be crucified. 
He now prepares to give final sentence. But he will first clear 
himself of the guilt of shedding innocent blood. He takes water 
and washes his hands before all, to show that he is clean.! 
“Then answered all the people, His blood be on us and on our 
children.” At this moment, about to give sentence, Pilate could 
not give up the poor satisfaction of mocking the Jews in what 
he knew well to be a most tender point — their Messianic hopes. 
He cries out, “Behold your king.” His contemptuous words 
only bring back the fierce response, ‘ Away with Him; crucify 
Him.” Still more bitterly he repeats, “Shall I crucify your 
king?” The answer of the chief priests, for the people are not 
said to have joined in it, “ We have no king but Cesar,” was an 
open renunciation of their allegiance to Jehovah and of the cove- 
nant which He had made with the house of David (2 Sam. vii. 
12). Thus had the Jews been led, step by step, not only to 
reject their Messiah, to prefer a robber and murderer before Him, 
to insist mercilessly that He should be put to a most shameful 
death, but even to accept and openly proclaim the Roman em- 
peror as their king. This was the culminating point of national 
apostasy. 


1 Many place this after the words of the Jews, ‘‘ We have no kmg but Cesar ™ 
(John xix. 15); so Stier. Some before the scourging of Jesus; so Jones. 


542 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


Some points presented by the narrative demand further con. 
sideration. Brief reasons have been given for supposing that 
Jesus was scourged but once. Some, however, would make the 
scourging mentioned by John (xix. 1) a kind of judicial torture, 
or quaestio per tormenta, for the purpose of forcing a confession if — 
the prisoner were really guilty. To this torture by scourging, 
it is said, Pilate subjected Jesus, not that he had any doubt of His 
innocence, but that if no confession of guilt were extorted, he 
might have stronger grounds for setting Him free." Torture was 
customary with the Romans (Acts xxii. 24), and was practised by 
Herod the Great.? But that Pilate should now have recourse to 
it, when he himself knew Jesus to be innocent, merely that he 
might say to the Jews that He had made no confession, is most 
improbable. Sepp (vi. 241) supposes that the soldiers regarded 
the scourging as intended to extort a confession, and acted 
accordingly though Pilate had other designs. 

The person to be scourged was bound to a low pillar that, 
bending over, the blows might be better inflicted. The pillar to 
which the Lord was bound is mentioned by Jerome and Bede 
and others. There is now shown in the church of the Holy 
Sepulchre a fragment of a porphyry column called the Column 
of the Flagellation, and a rival column is preserved at Rome. 
(See Baed., 198; Williams, H. C., ii. 207.) 

The traditional site in the Via Dolorosa of the place where 
Pilate presented Jesus to the people, or the Arch of the Hece 
Homo, has been recently defended by Sauley (ii. 291) who 
says that this arched gate was connected with a wall of Pilate’s 
palace, and answered the purpose of a gallery or tribune when 
the governor wished to address the people. (See Rob., iii. 171, 
220.) We know that Pilate brought Jesus out, and seated him- 
self upon the platform or tribune — ja — (John xix. 13), 
which was situated in the pavement, and there, for the second 
time, showed Him to the people. Some have understood it that 
he placed the Lord upon the tribune as if in mockery; a 
reject this. (For its position see Nebe, ii. 150.) 


! Hug, cited by Tholuck; Bucher, 777; Kirchen, Lex., vi. 271; Friedlieb, 831, see, 
however, contra, his Archiol., 116; Nebe, ii. 111. 

2 See Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 10. 3. and 4, 

8 Hofmann, 365. 





Part VII.] THE SENTENCE OF PILATE. 543 


The form of Pilate’s sentence is not given. The customary 
form was, Ibis ad crucem. Friedlieb (Arch., 125) gives a sen- 
tence pretended by Adrichomius to be genuine, but rightly re- 
jects it. Another sentence, said to have been found in Aquila 
in Italy, has been often printed. Another was found at the 
same place a few years since.’ Both are obvious fabrications. 

It has been much disputed whether Pilate transmitted to the 
emperor at Rome any account of Christ’s trial and death. In 
itself this is intrinsically probable, for it seems to have been the 
custom of governors of provinces to send thither records of the 
more important events occurring during their administration. 
Thus Philo speaks of the “acts,” (acta,) transmitted to Caligula 
from Alexandria. That Pilate did send such records, appears 
from Justin Martyr’s address to the Emperor Pius, ia which he 
appeals to them as proving Christ’s miracles and sufferings. 
Tertullian, in his Apology, also appeals to them. Eusebius, in 
his history (ii. 2), relates, upon the authority of Tertullian, that 
Tiberius, receiving these acts of Pilate containing an account of 
the Lord’s resurrection and of His miracles, proposed to the sen- 
ate that He should be ranked among the gods. If, however, 
Pilate really sent such an account, we obtain from it no addi- 
tional particulars respecting the trial and death of the Lord. 
No writer gives any quotation from it, from which it may be 
inferred that none, even of those who refer to it, had ever seen 
it ; and it is said by Schirer to have no historical value. (See 
Leyrer in Herzog, xi. 665.) Thesupposition that Pilate’s records 
had been destroyed by the senate or emperor before the time of 
Constantine, in order to remove this proof of Christianity, is not 
very probable.’ 

Some have attempted to cast additional light upon the evan- 
gelical narratives by referring to the Apocryphal Gospel of Nico- 
demus, in the first part of which an account is given of the trial, 
death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord.» But from it very 
little of value can be drawn.* 

That we may keep before us the order of events from the time the 
Lord was brought before Pilate to His departure to the place of cru- 


1 See both given by Hofmann, 360--369. 
2 See Jones, Canon N. Test. ii. 330; Pearson on Creed, art. 4; Jarvis, 375. 
& See Tischendorf’s Pilati Circa Christum Judicium, Lipsiae, 1855; Hofmann, 334. 


544 LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VII. 


cifixion, we may note the following subdivisions of time. 1. From 
the bringing to Pilate to the sending to Herod. 2. While with 
Herod. 3. After the return from Herod till the scourging and pre- 
sentation to the people as Ecce Homo. 4. To the final sentence. 

1. (a) Jesus is presented before Pilate by the rulers as a male- 
factor. He refers the case back to them: ‘‘Take ye Him and judge 
Him according to your law.” (0) They bring the more specific 
charge of sedition. Pilate now examines the Lord, and is convinced 
that it is not true, and so declares to the Jews. (c) They renew 
more loudly the charge of sedition, and speak of Galilee. Pilate 
determines to send Him to Herod. 

2. (a) The Lord is sent to Herod. The chief priests and scribes 
follow and vehemently accuse Him. He refuses to answer. (0) He 
is mocked by Herod and the soldiers, and sent back to Pilate. _ 

3. (@) On His return, Pilate calls together the chief priests and 
rulers and the people that he may declare Him innocent; but they 
are more vehement against Him. (+) He prepares to release Jesus 
dccording to the custom of the feast. The multitude chose Barabbas 
and cry, Crucify Jesus. (c) Message of his wife. (d@) Heorders Jesus 
to be scourged and presents Him to the people: ‘‘ Behold the man,” 
hoping to awaken their compassion. 

4. (a) The chief priests and officers renew their cries to crucify 
Him. (0) Pilate refuses and bids them crucify Him. They renew 
the charge, adding that He made Himself the Son of God. (c) Pilate 
examines Jesus anew, and again seeks to release Him. (d) The rulers 
threaten to accuse Pilate before the emperor. (e) Pilate is afraid, 
and yields to their demands. (jf) He takes water and washes his 
hands. (g) He gives Jesus up to be crucified. 


Fripay, 15TH Nisan, 7TH ApriL, 783. A. D. 30. 


Delivered by Pilate into the hands of soldiers, He is JOHN xix. 16-22. 
led without the city to a place called Golgotha, bearing Marv, xxyii. 31-33. 
His cross. Being exhausted under the burden, the MARK xy. 20-26. 
soldiers compel Simon of Cyrene, whom they meet, to 
bear it with Jesus. To some women following Him and LUKE xxiii. 26-33. 
weeping, He speaks words of admonition, and foretells 
the judgments about to come upon Jerusalem. After 
He has been affixed to the cross, they give Him wine Matt. xxvii. 33-38 
mingled with gall, but He will not drink. Two male- MARK xy. 27, 28. 
factors are crucified with Him, one on the right hand 
and one on the left. As they are nailing Him to the LUKE xxiii. 4. 
cross, He prays to His Father to forgive them. The 
inscription placed over His head displeases the Jews, 





Part VII] THE CRUCIFIXION. 545 


but Pilate refuses to change it. The soldiers who keep JounN xix. 23-4. 
watch at the foot of the cross, divide His garments 
among themselves. 


After the chief priests had declared that they “had no king 
but Cesar,” Pilate delivered Jesus to them, ‘and they took Him 
and led Him away” (John xix. 16). But this they did through 
the soldiers of the governor, as said by the Synoptists. Mark 
mentions that “they led Him out to crucify Him.” The place 
of crucifixion was outside the city. (The Holy City, like the 
camp of old, must not be defiled with blood, Num. xv. 35; so 
Naboth, 1 Kings xxi. 13, and Stephen, Acts vu. 58, were stoned 
without.) With Jesus two malefactors were led (Luke xxiii. 32). 
As they also were crucified, it must have been by command of 
the governor. Why he took this occasion we are not told; most 
probably they had been previously sentenced. Nebe (ii. 191) 
ascribes it to a purpose on Pilate’s part to mock the Messianic 
expectation of the Jews, the nation being represented by the two 
malefactors, and their Messiah between them. 

Some controverted points as to the time and the manner 
of the crucifixion here meet us. We will consider them in 
their order. The place will be considered later in connection 
with the burial. 


The time of the crucifixion. If the Sanhedrin held its second 
session at day-break, or a little before sunrise, as the statements of 
the Evangelists lead us to suppose, the events subsequent down to 
the crucifixion, must have occupied several hours. The time when 
Jesus was led to the hall of judgment is noted by John (xviii. 28), 
‘Cand it was early” — 4 dé zpwi. If this denote the fourth watch of 
the night, it was from 3-6 a. mM. The usual hour for opening judicial 
proceedings among the Romans, according to Friedlieb, was 9 A. M., 
but according to Nebe (ii. 27), much earlier, at sunrise, if necessary; 
and probably Pilate now a little anticipated the time. The crucifix- 
ion itself was at some point during the interval from nine to twelve. 
It was, according to John (xix. 14), ‘‘about the sixth hour” — 
pa 5€ deel Exrn— (wpa qv Us Extn, Tisch., W. and H.) when Pilate sat 
down in the judgment seat to pronounce final sentence. But this 
seems in direct opposition to Mark (xv. 25), ‘‘ And it was the third 
hour, and they crucified Him.” Against John’s statement is that 
also of all the Synoptists, that there was darkness from the sixth hour 
ever all the land till the ninth hour (Matt. xxvii. 45; Mark xv. 33; 


546 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


Luke xxiii. 44). This darkness did not begin till Jesus had been 
for some time nailed to the cross. 

Many efforts have been made to harmonize this discrepancy.’ 
That change of punctuation which places a period at the word ‘‘ prepa- 
ration” (in John xix. 14), and joins ‘‘ of the passover ” with ‘‘ hour,” 
making it to read, “ And it was the preparation, and about the sixth 
hour of the passover,” has been already spoken of in another connec- 
tion. (Licht., after Hofmann.) It is forced and untenable. Some 
would change ‘‘sixth” into ‘‘third,” regarding the former as an 
error of copyists,? and thus bring John into harmony with Mark. But 
all the weight of authority is in favor of the present reading.* Light- 
foot finds a solution in his interpretation of Mark, who does not say, 
‘it was the third hour when they crucified Him,” but ‘‘it was the 
third hour and they crucified Him.” This notes that the fathers of the 
Sanhedrin should have been present at the third hour in the temple, 
offering their thank offerings: ‘‘ When the third hour now was, and 
was passed, yet they omitted not to prosecute His conviction.” This 
is wholly unsatisfactory. Some would make the “‘ preparation” of 
John (xix. 14): ‘‘It was the preparation — rapacxevy — of the pass- 
over,” to denote not the whole day, but that part of it immediately 
preceding the Sabbath, or from 3-6 Pp. mM. Thus John’s meaning 
would be, it was the sixth hour before the commencement of the 
preparation, or about 9 a. M., which would agree with Mark. Oth- 
ers would read it, ‘‘about the sixth hour, or noon, the preparation 
time of Passover day commenced.” Both these constructions are 
arbitrary. Some would make the term hour— dpa —to be used by 
John in a large sense. The day of twelve hours, it is said, was di- 
vided into four equal periods, and to each of these periods was the 
term ‘‘hour” applied. Thus the first period was from 6-9 A. M., 
the second, from 9-12, the third, from 12-3 Pp. m., the fourth from 
8-6. During the period from 9-12 a. m. the condemnation and cruci- 
fixion of the Lord took place. Mark speaks of the third hour, or 
beginning of the second period, including the time from 9 to 10 4. 
m.; John of the sixth hour, or end of that period, including the 
time from 11 to 12 a. m.‘ Both agree that in the interval from 9-12 
the Lord was condemned and crucified. Hengstenberg in loco says: 


1 For a full account of early opinions, see Bynaens, iii. 178. 

2 Bynaeus; Robinson, Har., 261, Luthardt, Bloomfield. Farrar speaks of this as “a 
possible solution,’’ but Riddle thinks such an error unlikely: ‘‘ No recent editor accepts 
the reading.”’ See Langen, 329. 

8 Tischendorf, Alford, Greswell, Wieseler, Meyer, but see W. and H. Ap. 

€ It is said by Jones (iv. 41): ‘‘ The sixth hour was deemed to continue till 9 a. m."’; 
and by Grotius on Matt. xxviii. 45, that whatever was done between the third and sixth 
hour, might be referred to the beginning or end. So Campbell, Krafft. 





Part VIT.] TIME OF THE CRUCIFIXION. 547 


“The sentence of Pilate and the leading away to crucifixion, fill in 
the middle between the third and sixth hours, that is, about half an 
hour after ten.” Ellicott says: ‘‘The crucifixion was somewhere 
between the two broad divisions of the third and sixth hours.” But 
we cannot regard this meaning of the term hour as warranted.} 

Many affirm that John reckons the hours according to the Roman 
mode, from midnight; and if so, the sixth hour would be6 a.m. But 
there is much dispute as to the Roman mode of computation. It is 
said by many that the Romans had no such reckoning from mid- 
night (so Farrar), but the better opinion is that the Romans used both 
modes, from midnight and from sunrise. (See Wieseler, Syn. 410; 
Beitrige, 252; see page 159 for other references.) HK is thus possi- 
ble that John may have reckoned from midnight in this case, though 
we have seen reason to think that in other cases he reckons from 
sunrise. If Pilate counted the hours from midnight, and if there 
was a fixed hour for the opening of his court, it is very probable 
that this hour was the sixth, and that the Evangelist here followed 
this mode of computation. The objections are made that all the 
events narrated by the Evangelists from the first session of the San- 
hedrin to the condemnation, could not have taken place by 6 a. M., 
and that the interval from 6 to 9 is too long for the preparation nec- 
essary afterthe condemnation for the crucifixion; and these objections 
seem well taken. But we are to remember that our exact divisions 
of time were unknown to the ancients;? and that in our ignorance 
of the circumstances, we can here have no accurate measure of the 
time consumed; and also, that John says it was ‘‘about the sixth 
hour,” which shows that he does not mean to give an exact note of 
the time. 

We conclude, then,that John may have reckoned the hours from 
midnight, the sixth hour when Pilate sat down on the judgment 
seat, extending from 6 to 7 a. M.; the subsequent preparations for 
the crucifixion, and the time occupied in going to the cross, may well 
have brought the act of nailing to the cross about nine o’clock, as 
said by Mark. But if John reckoned, like the Synoptists, from sun- 
rise, then we must suppose an error in his text (Nebe), or in that of 
Mark (Caspari), or find a discrepancy which we know not how to 
reconcile. 

We give the following arrangements: 

Ewald: The Lord was brought to Pilate an hour before sunrise, 


1 See T. G. Lex., sub voce. Robinson, Greek Lex.; ‘‘ With a numeral, marking the 
hour of the day as counted from sunrise.” 
2 See Pauly, Real Encyc., ii. 1017, art. Dies. 


548 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


the sentence was pronounced at 6 a. m., and the crucifixion took 
place at 9 A. M. 

Edersheim: The process before Pilate began at 6.30 A. m., and 
occupied two hours; the Lord reached Golgotha about 9. 

Caspari: The Lord was taken before Pilate about 6 a. m.; the 
proceedings in the Pretorium lasted till near noon; the crucifixion 
was about 12 m., the Lord hanging on the cross only three hours. 


To the place of crucifixion Jesus was conducted by the sol- 
diers, Pilate not having lictors to whom such duty specially be- 
longed. Itis said by John (xix. 17): “And He bearing His 
cross, went forth.” (R. V. “He went out, bearing the cross for 
Himself.”) Luke (xxiii. 26) adds the incident “that they laid 
hold upon one Simon a Cyrenian, . . . and on him they 
laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus.” It is often 
said that the cross was first borne by the Lord alone according 
to custom, but fainting under the burden, it was put upon 
Simon. Itis plain from Matthew (xxvii. 32) that the procession 
met Simon as they passed out of the gate of the city and he was 
_ entering in, and so that the Lord bore the cross alone to this 
point. Whether He bore the whole cross or only a part of it — 
the cross-beam or patibulum — is in dispute. It is said by Zoeck- 
ler' (93) and Nebe (ii. 168) that He bore the whole cross; by 
others, as Keim, that He bore only the lighter transom. The 
data for a judgment are very scanty, but the belief of the early 
church was that the whole cross was put on the Lord; and this 
is shown in the early paintings, and in such expressions as “ to 
bear the cross,” ferre crucem, in crucem tollere, which refer to it as 
complete and set up (Luke xiv. 27; see Meyer on Matt. xxvii. 
32, note). It is nowhere said that He fell under the burden; this 
is an inference and a very probable one, and the painters so rep- 
resented it. The weight of the cross is estimated by Vigouroux 
at 70-75 kilograms; we may say about 150 lbs. It is doubted by 
some whether it was the Roman custom for all criminals to bear 
their own crosses, and whether the two malefactors did; if they 
did, we do not know whether they went in the same procession 
with the Lord. This is said by Sepp, they went before Him. 

Of this Simon who bore the cross, little is known except that 


1 The Cross of Christ (Trans., 1877). 


Part VIL] THE WAY TO THE CROSS. 549 


he was a Cyrenian and the father of Alexander and Rufus (Mark 
xv. 21). Many suppose him a slave from the fact, that while so 
many Jews must have been present, they were passed by, and 
he was seized upon to perform this degrading office. The rea- 
son, however, of his selection may simply have been that, chanc- 
ing to be close at hand when Jesus sank down from weariness, 
they compelled him to assist. Others suppose him to have been a 
disciple, and on that account selected; but this fact could scarcely 
have been known to the soldiers. That he subsequently became 
a disciple is more probable. Following the Lord upon the way 
to the place of crucifixion was ‘‘a great company of people 
and of women, which also bewailed and lamented Him” (Luke 
xxiii. 27). These women seem to have been not those only 
who followed Him from Galilee, but were in great part those of 
the city or the country adjacent, who had seen Him or heard 
Him, and now sympathized with Him, and whom He addresses 
as the “‘ Daughters of Jerusalem.” 


The Via Dolorosa. The way along which the Lord passed from 
the hall of judgment to the place of crucifixion is traditionally known 
as the Via Dolorosa.* Its course depends on the position we give to 
the two termini, about both of which there is uncertainty. Assuming 
that He was crucified near the present Holy Sepulchre, if the Pre- 
torium was at Herod’s palace, the way ran north; if at Antonia, it 
tan southwest (see cut); the distance being about the same in both 
cases, and is estimated in the Speakers’ Commentary (Matt. xxvii. 31) 
as less than one-third of a mile. 

It is said by Vigouroux (Le Nouveau Testament) who puts the 
Pretorium at Antonia, that the length of the way was from 500-600 
metres; an old measurement made it 1,321 steps. Of the way from 
Herod’s palace tradition says nothing, but makes frequent mention 
of the way from Antonia. But it is said by Robinson (iii. 170) that 

the first allusion to the present Via Dolorosa he had found, was in 
the 14th century, and that in the 12th we know that no street in 
Jerusalem bore this name. Sepp (vi. 305), who puts the Pretorium 
at Herod’s palace, supposes the Lord to have passed through the 


1 So Meyer, Sepp. 
. 2 For a minute account of the Lord’s progress from the judgment hall to the cross, 
along the Via Dolorosa, and the traditionary incidents, see Hofmann, 371. And for full 
" details as to the traditional stations along this way, see Tobler, Top., i. 262, etc. If the 
place of crucifixion was northof the Damascus gate, we arestill uncertain as to the point 
_ from whence the way began. Sepp, Aritische Beitrage, 60. : 


‘ 
‘ 


a 


550 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


Gennath or garden gate, and thence to Golgotha; and Edersheim 
(ii. 586), “through the gate in the first wall, and so into the busy 
quarter of Acra.” All traces of the Lord’s route have been long 
obliterated by the changes through which the city has passed. 
Col. Wilson (Bib. Ed., iv. 278) remarks that ‘‘ the Armenian gardens 





ane \Antonia 


Holy of 
Sepulc rer \ 
H 











"Herod's Palace 





THE VIA DOLOROSA OR DOLOROUS WAY. 

















are from forty to fifty feet above those of Herod’s palace, and that 
the present Via Dolorosa is about the same height above the pave- 
ments of the ancient street.” 

The Crucifixion. This was a punishment used by the Greeks, — 
Romans, Egyptians, and many other nations, but not by the Jews. 
It was, indeed, permitted by the law to hang a man on a tree, but 
only after he had been put to death (Deut. xxi. 22, 23). Upon this, 
Maimonides, quoted by Ainsworth, remarks: ‘‘ After they are stoned 
to death, they fasten a piece of timber in the earth and out of it there 
crosseth a piece of wood; then they tie both his hands one to another, — 
and hang them near unto the setting of the sun.” The form of the 
cross might be varied. Sometimes it was in the shape of the letter 
X, this was called crux decussata. Sometimes it was in the shape 
of the letter T, this was called crux commissa. Sometimes it was 
in the form following: 9, this was called crux immissa. These 
designations seem to have been invented by Lipsius (De Cruce, i. vii.). 
The crux decussata is better known as St. Andrew’s cross; the erua 
commissa, as the Egyptian, or St. Anthony’s, or the Greek cross; the 
crux immissa as the Latin cross, According to Zoeckler (65) neither 


Part VII.] MANNER OF CRUCIFIXION. ddl 


the crux decussatu nor commissa can be shown to be a Roman instru- 
ment of punishment. Tradition affirms that the cross on which the 
Lord suffered was the Latin cross; and early painters have so rep- 
resented it, and this is generally accepted. The upright post or beam 
was by no means lofty, generally only so high as to raise the person a 
few inches from the ground. It is uncertain whether the cross was 
placed in the ground before the victim was nailed to it, or after; but 
the former is most probable.* Midway upon it was a little projection, 
sedile, upon which the person sat, that the whole weight of the body 
might not fall upon the arms and they thus be torn from the nails. 
The arms were sometimes tied with cords, perhaps to prevent this 
pressure upon the nails, or that the nailing might be the more easily 
effected. The head was not fastened. Whether the feet were gener- 
ally nailed, has been much disputed.* That the Lord’s feet were thus 
nailed may be inferred from Luke xxiv. 39, 40. Appearing to the 
Eleven upon the evening following His resurrection, He said to 
them: “ Behold my hands and my feet that it is I Myself; handle me 
and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have. 
And when He had thus spoken, He showed them His hands and His 
feet.” This showing of the hands and feet could not be simply to 
convince them that His body was a real body and not a mere phan- 
tasm; but was also intended to convince them of His identity. ‘‘It 
is I Myself, and in proof of this, look at the prints of the nails re- 
maining in my hands and my feet.” John (xx. 20) says, ‘‘ He 
showed unto them His hands and His side.” From both narratives, 
it follows that He showed them the wounds in His hands, His side, 
and His feet. That, at His second appearing to the Eleven, He 
spake to Thomas only of His hands and His side, is to be explained 
as giving all the proof that that skeptical apostle had demanded (verse 
25). Alford gives a little different explanation: ‘‘ He probably does 
not name the feet, merely because the hands and side would more nat- 
urally offer themselves to his examination than the feet to which he 
must stoop.” That the feet of the Lord were nailed, has been the 
current view of commentators.‘ But it has been questioned whether 


1 Hofmann, 372. See Bynaeus (iii. 225), and Didron’s Christian Iconography 
_ (Trans. i. 374) for a discussion of the various forms of the cross; also, History of our 
_ Lord, Jameson and Eastlake, ii. 320; Nebe, ii. 169. 

2 Friedlieb, Arch., 142; Greswell, iii. 245; Zoeckler, 412; Edersheim, ii. 589, is 
_ undecided. 

3 In neg., see Paulus (Handbuch, iii. 669), who discusses this point at great 
Jength; Winer, i. 678; in aff., Friedlieb, 144; Meyer on Matt. xxvii. 35, who says “that 
the feet were usually nailed, and that the case of Jesus was no exception to the general 
‘Tule, may be regarded as beyond doubt.” 
+ Tholuck, Stier, Lange, Ebrard, Ewald, Olshausen. 





552 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


the feet were separately nailed, or one nail was used for both. Ac- 
cording to Hofmann, most of the painters have represented the feet 
as lying one over the other and both pierced by the same nail.! 
Didron (Christian Iconography) observes: ‘‘Previous to the thir- 
teenth century, Christ was attached to the cross by three or four 
nails indifferently. After the thirteenth century, the practice of 
putting only three nails was definitely in the ascendant.” On the 
other hand, early tradition speaks of four nails, and it is said by 
Vigouroux that all the Greek painters have four.?_ It is possible th_t 
the crown of thorns remained upon His head, as represented by the 
painters. Matthew and Mark, who both speak of taking off the 
purple robe, say nothing of the soldiers removing the crown of 
thorns.* 

Both Matthew (xxvii. 34) and Mark (xv. 23) speak of a potion 
given to the Lord (that mentioned in Luke xxiii. 36 was later), and © 
some find a contradiction between them, the first speaking of ‘‘ vine- — 
gar mingled with gall,” the last of ‘‘ wine mingled with myrrh.” 
According to W. and H. and Tisch., we should read olvov— wine — | 
in Matthew, and thus the difference in their statements is only the men- 
tion by one of gall, by the other of myrrh. It is insisted by Meyer 
that these two terms cannot be interchanged. If this view be taken, 
we may distinguish the two, as is done by Townsend and Jones; the 
first, wine mingled with gall, offered Him in derision, which He tasted 
but refused; the second, an intoxicating draught which He also re- 
fused. The object in offering the last seems to have been to stu- 
pefy the sufferer, so that the pain might not be so acutely felt, and this 
was usually given before the nailing to the cross. This, however, was 
a Jewish, not a Roman custom, though now permitted by the Romans.* 
Lightfoot (on Matt. xxvii. 34) quotes from the Rabbins: ‘‘To those 
that were to be executed they gave a grain of myrrh infused in wine 
to drink, that their understanding might be disturbed or they lose their 
senses, as it is said, ‘ Give strong drink to them that are ready to die, 
and wine to them that are of sorrowful heart.’” This mixture the 
Lord tasted, but, knowing its purpose, would not drink it. He 
would not permit the clearness of His mind to be thus disturbed, 
and, in the full possession of consciousness, would endure all the 
agonies of the cross. It is said that this potion was prepared by 





















1 See, however, Friedlieb, Archiiol., 145 note; Langen, 317. 

2 See Winer, i. 678; Sepp, vi. 333; Ellicott, 353; Zoeckler, 416. 

8 See History of Our Lord, ii. 101: On His way to Calvary, He is generally rep 
sented in Art as with the crown of thorns on His head, but on the cross, often wi 
it. 

4 Friedlieb, Archiol., 140. 


Part VII] INSCRIPTION ON THE CROSS, 553 


benevolent women of Jerusalem, and brought to those condemned to 
this punishment. 

In this view of the matter, there were two potions offered to the 
Lord before He was nailed to the cross; one of wine and gall, offered, 
as said by Lightfoot, ‘‘ for greater mockage and out of rancor”; this 
He tasted but would not drink; and one of wine and myrrh, which 
He did not take because of its stupefying effect. Others, however, 
think that Matthew and Mark refer to the same potion, ‘‘myrrh” and 
“gall” being general terms for bitter substances, and put here for the 
whole class. (So Alexander; Keil, ‘‘the same drink with different 
name.”’) 

The Inscription. It was customary with the Romans to affix to the 
cross an inscription or superscription — titulus, rirdos, alrla, érvypady 
— giving the name of the criminal and the nature of his crime. 
Whether, written upon a tablet, it was borne before the criminal, or 
hung upon his neck, or was attached to the cross, is uncertain; but, 
on reaching the place of execution, it was set up over his head. As 
this inscription is differently given by the Evangelists, it has been 
conjectured that it was differently written in the Greek, Latin, and 
Hebrew.’ Pilate, who as judge prepared the inscription, took occa- 
sion to gratify his scorn of the Jews who had so thwarted him; and 
his short and decisive answer, when he was requested by them to 
change it, ‘‘ What I have written, I have written,” shows the bitter- 
ness of his resentment. Greswell and Edersheim suppose this request 
may have been made before the arrival at Calvary, but probably it was 
after the cross was set up. It seems to have been a formal request, 
probably made at the Pretorium by the chief priests in a body. 

We give the superscription in a tabular form: 








Matt. xxvii. 37. Mark xy. 26. Luke xxiii. 38. | John xix. 19. 
This is Jesus This is Jesus of Nazareth 
The The The The 


KING OF THE JEws.|KING OF THE JEWS. KING OF THE J es ad OF THE JEWS. 








The designation of the offense is the same in all the Evangelists, — 
““The King of the Jews”; the words before it are merely introduc- 
tory or explanatory, and might have been wholly omitted, as by 
Mark, without leaving less clear the nature of the offense or the per- 


son of the offender. Probably Pilate wrote it in Latin, the official 
_ tongve; and then himself or another translated it into Hebrew, the 





~ Pearson on The Creed, Art.4. Langen, 323. 

























554 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


language of the land; and into Greek, which was very generally 
spoken, especially by the Jews from other countries.‘ That Pilate 
was justified in setting up this inscription is shown in the fact that 
this was the accusation of the rulers (Luke xxiii. 2), and the ground — 
on which he had condemned Him. 

From the silence of the Evangelists as to any inscriptions over the 
malefactors, it cannot be inferred that there were none. It is said 
that it was by these that the Empress Helena (326 A. D.) was first 
able to distinguish the cross of the Lord. 

The two Malefuctors. With Jesus were crucified two malefactors, 
of whom we know nothing, but who may have been companions of 
Barabbas.* One early tradition makes them to have been two robbers, 
named Titus and Dumachus, whom Jesus met in Egypt; and it is said — 
that He then predicted that both should be crucified with Him.* An- 
other tradition gives their names as Gestas and Dysmas. It is prob- 
able that both were Jews, and certainly the penitent one, as appears — 
from his request to the Lord. Some have conjectured that he had 
been earlier one of His followers, but had fallen away. The Lord’s 
position between the two was probably directed by Pilate to spite the 
priests and to cast contempt on their Messianic hopes; but it may have 
' been done by the soldiers; it is not likely that the priests directed in 
the matter. Greswell (iii. 246), from John xix. 32, 38, conjectures 
that the crosses of the two malefactors looked to the west, but that of 
Jesus to the east. Tradition makes His to have looked to the west.* 

The prayer, ‘‘ Father, forgive them, for they know not what they 
do,” given only by Luke (xxiii. 34), was probably spoken while the 
soldiers were nailing Him to the cross, or immediately after. It 
doubtless embraced all who took part in His crucifixion — not only 
the soldiers, who were compelled to obey the orders given them, but 
the Jewish priests and elders, and the Roman governor—all who 
had caused His sufferings. ; 

The garments of the crucified belonged to the soldiers as their 
spoil. After the four appointed to this duty had divided His gar 
ments, they sat down to watch the crosses. 


1 See Merivale. Rom. Hist., iv. 392; McClel., 506; Jones, 409. 

2 As to the abundance of thieves and robbers at this time and its causes, see 
foot on Matt. xxvii. 38. 8 Hofmann, 176. 

4 Hofmann, 376. 


Part VII.] JESUS UPON THE CROSS. 558 


Fripay, 15TH Nisan, 7tH AprRIL, 783. A.D. 30. 


While hanging upon the cross, the multitudes, Matt. xxvii. 39-44. 
as they pass by, revile and deride Him. Inthis Mark xy. 29-82. 
mockery the high priests and scribes andelders, and LuKE xxiii. 35-43. 
even the two malefactors, join. From the cross, 
beholding His mother standing near by with John, JOHN xix. 25-27. 
He commends him to her as her son, and her to 
him as his mother; and John takes her to his own 
house. Darkness now overspreads the land from Marv. xxvii. 45-56. 
the sixth to the ninth hour, and during this period Mark xy. 33-41. 
He suffers in silence. Afterward drink is given LUKE xxiii. 4449. 
Him, and after He has drunk He commends His JouN xix. 28-30, 
spirit to God, and dies. At this moment the veil 
of the temple is rent, the earth shakes, the rocks 
are rent, and graves opened. The centurion bears 
witness that He was the Son of God, and the multi- 
tuae return smiting their breasts. 


The place of crucifixion being near the city, and great 
multitudes being gathered at the feast, it was natural that 
crowds should come to look upon Him, whom all knew by 
reputation, and many in person. From the time of the cruci- 
fixion to the time when the darkness began, sufficient time 
elapsed to allow His enemies, who hastened to the spot, to 
behold Him upon the cross. Matthew (xxvii. 39-44) divides 
those who reviled Him into three classes: the passers-by; the 
chief priests, elders, and scribes; and the malefactors. (So 
Mark xv. 29-32.) Luke says, that “the rulers with the people 
derided Him,” which implies that the rulers began the mockery. 
He adds that “the soldiers also mocked Him, coming to Him, 
and offering Him vinegar.” Some, as Stier, would identify this 
with the offer to Him of the mixed wine as He was about to be 
nailed to the cross; some, as Lichtenstein, to the giving of the 
vinegar just before His death. Most probably, however, it is to 
be distinguished from these, and refers to something done a little 
before the darkness began; perhaps, as the soldiers were eating 
their dinner near the cross.'_ The vinegar was doubtless the 
sour wine, or posca, which they usually drank. Their offers 
were in derision, no wine being actually given. It is called by 
Meyer, “a mocking offer, not an actual giving to drink.” 


1 Greswell, Alford. Keil regards it as a summary statement of the mockings to 
which He was subject. 


556 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


Tt is not certain whether both of the malefactors reviled the 
Lord, or but one. Matthew and Mark speak of both; Luke, of 
but one. According to some, both joined at first in the general 
derision; but, beholding the godlike patience and forbearance of 
Jesus, and knowing on what grounds He was condemned, one 
repented, and began to reprove his more wicked companion." 
The obvious objection, however, to this is, that the first act of 
one so converted couid scarcely be to reprove in another what 
he had but a few moments before been guilty of himself. ‘This, 
perhaps, is more plausible than sound. Most, after Augustine, 
suppose that Matthew and Mark speak in general terms of them 
as a class of the persons that joined in deriding Jesus, but without 
meaning to say that both actually derided Him.? At what time 
the words were spoken by the Lord to the penitent thief, we are 
not told. Most place them before His words to His mother and 
to John (John xix. 25-27). They were thus the second words 
spoken from the cross. 

We cannot determine whether the mother of Jesus, or any 

‘of the women that followed Him from Galilee, or any of the 
apostles, was present at the time when He was nailed to the cross; 
but if not there, some of them soon after came, doubtless hoping 
to comfort Him by their presence. For a time, they would 
naturally stand at a distance till the first outbreaks of anger and 
mockery were past, and His chief enemies, satiated with the 
spectacle, had withdrawn. The statement of the Synoptists 
(Matt. xxvii. 55, 56; Mark xv. 40, 41; Luke xxiii. 49), that His 
acquaintance, and the women that followed Him from Galilee, 
stood afar off, seems to refer to a later period, and after the 
darkness; perhaps, to the moment of His death. The incident 
narrated by John of the commendation of the Virgin mother to 
him, may thus have been a little before the darkness began; and 
after this the disciples, terrified by it and by the signs that 
attended His death, may not have dared to.approach the cross. 
Krafft, however (150), supposes that it was after the darkness 


1 So early, many; recently, Lange. 

2 Ebrard, Da Costa, Lichtenstein, Edersheim. Meyer finds two traditions; and 
Alford, that Matthew and Mark report more generally and less accurately than Luke 
For a statement of opinions, see Bynaeus, iii. 367. 

8 Ebrard, Stier, Da Costa, Greswell. 





Part Vil.] JESUS AND HIS MOTHER. 557 


that His mother and John, with the other women, approached 
Him, and that the Synoptists refer to an earlier period. 

According to many, John at once took Mary to his home, or to 
the house he was occupying during the feast; for it does not appear 
otherwise that he had any house in Jerusalem of his own.’ A 
confirmation of this is found in the fact that the Synoptists do not 
mention her name among tkose that beheld afar off at the hour of 
His death. It has, therefore, been inferred that Jesus, in his 
compassion, would spare her the pain of seeing His dying agonies, 
and so provided that she be taken away.? But it may be ques. 
tioned whether the words, “And from that hour that disciple 
took her unto his own house,” mean any more than that ever 
after this she was a member of John’s household, and was 
treated by him as a mother. But if John then led Mary away 
from the place of crucifixion, he must afterward have returned, 
as he declares himself to have been an eye-witness of the pierc- 
ing of the side, and the flowing out of the blood and water 
(xix. 35). Whether he was the only apostle present at the Lord’s 
death, is matter of conjecture. This is supposed by Stier; but 
there is no good reason why others, if not daring to approach 
near, should not have looked on from a distance. 

That the darkness, which is not mentioned by John, was no 
natural darkening of the sun, but a supernatural event, is re- 
cognized by all who do not wholly deny the supernatural element 
in the Gospel narratives. The reading in Luke xxiii. 44, 45 
isin question. (For the T. R., “The sun was darkened,” Tisch., 
W. and H., and others substitute tov jAiov éxAsimévtoc. R. 
V., “ The sun’s light failing.” See T. G. Lex., éxAeinw. Meyer 
regards the last reading as a gloss.) But the new reading does 
not affect the miraculous element, as it does not explain the 
cause of the sun’s light failing. The attempt to bring it into 
connection with the eclipse mentioned by Phlegon of Tralles, 
has been already mentioned; and that it could have been 
caused in such a way is disproved by the fact that it was then 
full moon.‘ Some, however, would connect it with the earth 


1 Townson, Greswell, Stier, Meyer. 

2 Bengel. 

8 Luthardt, ii. 421; Lichtenstein, 448. 

£ The attempt of Seyffarth to show that the Jews might then have kept the Pass- 
over on the 25th March, finds no defenders. See Winer, ii. 482: Langen, 342. 


| 
558 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD, [Part VIL ~ 


quake, and explain it as the deep gloom that not unfrequently 
precedes such convulsiors of nature.’ But this supposes that 
the earthquake was a mere natural event, whereas this also was 
plainly extraordinary. Meyer: “Not an ordinary earthquake, 
but a supernatural phenomenon.” The darkness began at the 
sixth hour, or twelve m., and continued till the ninth, or three 
p.m. According to Caspari, the Lord was crucified at the sixth 
hour, and then the darkness began. Hengstenberg also makes 
the darkness to have begun at the time of the crucifixion, but 
at the third hour. Whether the darkness came gradually, and 
gradually ceased, is not said; many held its beginning and end- 
ing to have been sudden. The forms of expression, “over all 
the land,” maoayv tiv yiv (Matthew), “over the whole land,” 
éAnv tiv ynv (Mark and Luke), do not determine how far the 
darkness extended. Many would confine it to the land of — 
Judea, as our version does, except in Luke where it is rendered, 
“over all the earth.”* If, however, it extended beyond Judea, 
the phrase “whole earth” need not be taken in its most literal 
“sense, but is to be regarded as a general expression, embracing 
the countries adjacent. Some, however, would extend it over — 
all that part of the earth on which the sun was then shining.* 
That during this period of darkness many of the bystanders 
skould have left the place of crucifixion and returned to the 
city, is probable, though not stated. Stier, however, affirms: 
“No man dares to go away, all are laid under a spell; others, 
rather, are attracted to the place.” But when we consider that 
the Lord’s enemies would naturally construe the darkness as a 
sign of God’s anger against Him, if they gave it any super- 
natural character, any such fear can scarce be attributed to 
them; nor does it appear in their subsequent conduct. That 
some of the spectators remained, appears from Matthew’s words 
(xxvii. 47), that there were some standing there when He called 
for Elias. (See also Luke xxiii. 48.) It is probable, though not 
explicitly stated, that the darkness began to disperse a few 


1 Paulus, Handbuch, iii. 764; contra, Nebe, ii. 302. 

2 So Ebrard, Olshausen, A. Clark, Keil, Norton, who renders it, “‘ over the whole 
country.” 

3 Meyer, Lange, Nebe. 

4 So Alford, who makes the fact of the darkness at Jerusaiem all that the Evan 
geliste testify to as within their personal knowledge. 





Part VII.] THE LORD’S LAST WORDS. : 559 


moments before the Lord’s death, and that the returning light 
emboldened His enemies to renew their mockeries.' 

The cry of Jesus, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani”—‘ My God, 
my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” was about the ninth - 
hour; either a little before the cessation of the darkness,? or 
just after its cessation. So far as appears, during the three 
hours of gloom, the Lord was silent, and doubtless all were 
silent around Him. But by whom were His words understood 
asa call for Elias? From the similarity of sound, the Roman 
soldiers might have so misunderstood Him; but it is not prob- 
able that they knew much of the current Jewish expectations 
respecting Elas as the forerunner of the Messiah. Lightfoot 
explains it, that the word “Eli” is not properly Syriac, and 
thus was strange to the Syrian ear and deceived the standers-by. 
But such a misunderstanding on the part of the Jews, whether 
they were from Judza or from other lands, is not easily credi- 
ble. Some affirm that the Jews, terrified by the darkness, now 
began to fear that the day of God’s judgment was actually at 
hand; and, in their superstitious terror, naturally interpreted 
Christ’s words as a call for him, the prophet whose coming was 
closely connected in their minds with the great day of God.‘ 
But this is not consistent with what follows. The general view, 
therefore, seems to be the right one, that they were Jews, who 
wilfully perverted His meaning, and made the cry of distress an 
occasion of new insult and ridicule.® 

In immediate connection with the words of the bystanders, 
“this man calleth for Elias,” one of them is said by Matthew 
and Mark to have run, and taking a sponge and filling it with 
vinegar, gives Himadrink. This act, which in the Synoptists 
seems unexplained, may have followed from His words which 
are recorded only by John (xix. 28), “I thirst.” We may thus 
arrange the events: Immediately after His exclamation, “ My 
God, why hast thou forsaken me?” He adds, “I thirst.” One 
of those present, perhaps a soldier, perhaps a spectator, moved 
by a sudden feeling of compassion, prepares the vinegar or sour 


1 Stier, Lichtenstein. 

2 Stier, Ellicott. 3 Greswell. 

# Olshausen, Lange, Jones. 

5 Meyer, Alexander, Alford, Friedlieb, Ellicott, Keil. 


560 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


wine, the drink of the Roman soldiers, which was at hand, 
and makes ready to give Him to drink. While doing this, 
the others call upon him to wait a little, that they may see 
whether Elias will come to save Him (Matt. xxvii. 49). He, 
however, gives Jesus the drink, and then adds, either to con- 
ceal his compassionate impulse or as ashamed of it, “Let 
alone, now we will wait for Elias” (Mark xv. 36). Thus the 
words of Matthew will be those of the spectators; those of Mark 
the words of the giver of the drink. John (xix. 29) omits this 
mockery, and merely says in general terms, “ they filled a sponge 
with vinegar,” etc. Luke’s words (xxiii. 36) may be referred to 
earlier mockeries.’ 

After Jesus had received the vinegar, He cried out with a 
loud voice, “It is finished.” The Evangelist adds, “ And He 
bowed His head and gave up the ghost” (John xix. 30). Luke 
(xxiii. 46) narrates that ‘When He had cried with a loud voice, 
He said, Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit: and hay- 
ing said this, He gave up the ghost.” Matthew and Mark both 
mention that He cried with a loud voice, but do not relate what 
He said. There can be little doubt that His words given by 
John, ‘ It is finished,” were spoken before those given by Luke, 
“ Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.”? Having taken 
the vinegar, which gave Him a momentary relief from His 
thirst, He says, feeling that the end was at hand, “It is fin- 
ished.” He now turns to God, and, addressing to Him His 
dying prayer, bows his head and dies. 

The order of the words spoken by our Lord from the cross 
may be thus given: — Before the darkness: 1st. His prayer for 
His enemies. 2d. His promise to the penitent thief. 3d. His 
charge to His mother and to John. During the darkness: 4th. 
His cry of distress to God. After the darkness: 5th. His ex- 
clamation, ‘I thirst.” 6th. His declaration, “It is finished.” 
7th. The final commendation of His spirit to God.* Ebrard 
would thus arrange the first three: lst. His prayer for His ene- 


1 See Stier, viii. 14-18; Alexander, in loco. As to the kind of drink given Him, and 
the motive with which it was given, see various suppositions in Bynaens, iii. 423. As ta 
the hyssop branch on which the sponge was put, see Royle, Jour. Sac. Lit., Oct., 1849. 

2 Meyer, Stier, Da Costa, Alford ; contra, Neander. 

8 Stier, Greswell, and many. 





Part VII] ORDER OF THE SEVEN WORDS. 561 


mies. 2d. His charge to His motherand John. 3d. His prom- 
ise to the penitent thief. Krafft’s order is as follows: Ist. His 
prayer for His enemies. 2d. His promise to the penitent thief. 
3. His cry of distress to God. 4th. His charge to His mother 
and John. 5th. His exclamation, “I thirst.” 6th. “It is fin- 
ished.” 7th. Commendation of His spirit to God. 

The quaking of the earth and the rending of the veil of the 
tenple and of the rocks, appear from Matthew and Mark to have 
been at the same instant as His death. Luke (xxiii. 45), who 
mentions only the rending of the veil, speaks as if it took place 
when the sun was darkened, but his language is general. Mey- 
er’s interpretation of the statement that ‘there was a darkness 
over all the earth until the ninth hour,” as denoting only a par- 
tial obscuration of the sun, but that at the ninth hour it “ was 
darkened,” and wholly disappeared from sight, and that at the 
same moment the veil of the temple was rent, has little substan- 
tial in its favor. Darkness, in which the sun was still visible, 
could scarcely be so called. The first statement, verse 44, is the 
effect; the second, verse 45, the cause.t Perhaps the darkness 
may have deepened in intensity to nearitsclose. That the rend- 
ing of the veil could not be ascribed to an earthquake, however 
violent, is apparent. There were two veils, one before the holy 
and one before the most holy place (Exod. xxvi. 31-36). It is 
generally agreed that the latter is here meant. 

The account given by Matthew only (xxvii. 52, 53), of the 
opening of the graves and appearing of many bodies of the 
saints, some, as Norton, have rejected as an interpolation. There 
is, however, no doubt as to the genuineness of the text. The 
graves seem to have been those in the immediate vicinity of 
Jerusalem, but the Evangelist does not say this. That those 
who arose are called “saints ” — dyzot,— does not determine 
who are meant; whether some who had died recently, perhaps 
since Christ began His ministry, or some who died long before 
and had been buried there, perhaps patriarchs and prophets. 
Some of the early fathers affirmed that all the saints from the 
beginning arose. From the fact that they appeared to many, 
the presumption is, that they had not long been dead, and thus 


1 Oosterzee, in loco. 


562 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


were recognized by those to whom they appeared. That their 
resurrection was after Christ’s resurrection, although the open- 
ing of their tombs was at His death, best harmonizes with the 
scope of the narrative. This, however, is questioned by Meyer, 
who supposes the Evangelists to say that they came out of the 
graves at His death, but did not enter the holy city till after 
His resurrection;' after He had arisen they appeared openly, 
their resurrection thus giving force and meaning to His. But it 
was the Lord’s resurrection, not His death, that opened the gates 
of Hades. Dying, the rocks were rent and the doors of the 
sepulchres were opened ; but, rising, He gave life to the dead.? 
Da Costa (429) places, however, the opening of the graves also 
subsequent to the resurrection. Whether those thus raised were 
raised in the immortal and incorruptible body, and soon ascended 
to heaven; or whether, like others, they died again, we have no 
means of determining. The language, they “appeared unto 
many,” implies that they, like the Lord Himself after His resur- 
rection, were not seen by all, but only by those to whom they 
wished to manifest themselves.° 

The impression made upon the centurion by all the wonder- 
ful events accompanying the Lord’s death was such that he 
openly testified his conviction that Jesus was ‘“‘ The Son of God” 
(Matt. and Mark). “Certainly this was a righteous man” 
(Luke): How much these expressions may have meant, for 
probably at different times he uttered both, is not clear; but 
probably knowing that He was condemned by the Jews because 
He made Himself the Son of God, he meant that Jesus was 
more than mere man —a demi-god (Meyer) —and was wrongly 
condemned.* We cannot suppose that the mystery of the Incar- 
nation was known to him. 


1 So Bynaeus, Nebe. 

2 Calvin, Lightfoot, Whitby, A. Clarke, Calmet, Greswell, Krafft, Ebrard Bengel, 
Alford. 

3 For early opinions, see Calmet, translated in Journal Sac. Lit. 1848, vol.i. See 
also Lardner, ix. 328; Sepp, vi. 401. 

4 The name of this centurion is given by tradition as Longinus, and that becoming 
@ believer, he was afterwards bishop of Cappadocia. Hofmann, 380, 





Part VIL] © CAUSE OF THE LORD’S DEATH. 563 


Fripay, 1oraH Nisan, 7tH AprRiL, 783. A.D. 30. 


Soon after the Lord’s death, the chief priests come to JOHN xix. 31-37. 
Pilate, requesting that the bodies may be taken down 
before sunset, because the next day is the Sabbath. 
Obtaining their request, the legs of the two malefactors 
are broken to hasten their death; but Jesus, being found 
already dead, is pierced with a spearinthe side. Atthis Marr. xxvii. 57-60 
time, Joseph of Arimathea goes to Pilate, andinform- JOHN xix. 38-42. 
ing him that Jesus is already dead, asks His body Marx xy. 42-46. 
for burial; and Pilate, after satisfying himself that Luxe xxiii. 50-54. 
He is actually dead, orders the body to be given him. 
Aided by Nicodemus, Joseph takes the body and winding 
it in linen clothes with spices, lays it in his own sepul- 
chre in a garden near the cross, and shuts up the sepul- LUKE xxiii. 55, 56. 
chre. Some women beholding where He is laid, and re- 
turning home, prepare spices and ointments that they Marr. xxvii. 61. 
may embalm Him after the Sabbath is past. During Marx xy. 47. 
the Sabbath the council obtains permission from Pilate 
to seal up the sepulchre, and set a watch, lest the disci- Mart. xxvii. 62-66. 
ples should steal the body. 


It was the custom of the Romans to permit the body to re 
main on the cross till it was consumed by the birds or beasts or 
wasted by corruption. (Pearson, The Creed, Art. 4.) But it was 
an express command of the law (Deut. xxi. 23), that the body 
should not remain all night upon the tree, but must be taken 
down and buried the same day.’ Aside from this command of 
the law, it was probably thought desirable by the rulers that 
the body of Jesus should be, as early as possible, removed from 
public sight. It is not certain whether the Jews who came to 
Pilate knew that He was actually dead; but their request that 
the legs of the crucified might be broken, implies that they did 
not. If so, they must have come to Pilate about three P.M., or 
a little before His death. If, however, they did know that He 
was dead, as they might from the marked circumstances that at- 
tended the act of dissolution, their request had reference to the 
two malefactors, who were still living; and perhaps also was de- 
signed to make the death of Jesus certain.* That the natural 
effect of the breaking of their legs would be to hasten death is 
plain, and this was the end the Jews sought. Usually the 





1 Josephus, War, iv. 5. 2; Josh. x. 26. 
2 So Meyer. 


564 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD, [Part VIL 


Romans did not in this, or any other way, hasten it; though 
sometimes the crucified were subjected to personal injuries, as 
pounding with hammers or breaking of limbs, in order to in- 
crease their sufferings. The term crurtfragium, though literally 
applicable only to the breaking of the legs, and which sometimes 
constituted a separate punishment, seems to have been applied to 
various other acts which tended to increase the pain, and so 
to shorten life; and may have included the use of the spear 
(Zoeckler, 418.) The Jews did not wish to increase their suffer- 
ings, but to hasten death; and we may well suppose that the 
soldiers were directed, if the breaking of the legs should not 
prove sufficient, to use other means." Whether, in addition to 
the breaking of the legs of the two malefactors, other violent means 
were used, is not certain; but the narrative does not imply it. 

The object of piercing the Lord’s side was not so much to 
cause death as to make sure that he was already dead. Which 
side was pierced, is not said; and the painters, as well as the 
commentators, have been divided in opinion; most, however, 
suppose the left side. This, as will be seen, has a bearing on 
the cause of the Lord’s death. With what intent does the Evan- 
gelist mention the flowing out of the blood and the water? 
Does he mention it as a simple physiological fact, and in proof 
of the Lord’s death; or as a supernatural event to which he at- 
taches some special significance? And here some questions 
arise as to the nature of the Lord’s death, and its physical 
cause. 

First of all is the inquiry, whether He died as other ecru- 
cified persons died, death being the natural consequence of his — 
bodily sufferings ; or whether He gave up His life by an imme: 
diate act of His own will, or by an immediate act of His 
Father in answer to His prayer. The latter view seems to 
have prevailed in the early Church, though by no means 
universally. (See Stroud, Physical Cause of Christ's Death, 
London, 1847.) Of recent writers, Tholuck says: “By an act 
of power the Redeemer actually separated His spirit from His 
body, and placed it, as a deposit, in His Father’s keeping.” Alford 
observes: “It was His own act, no feeling the approach of 


1 Friedlieb, Archiiol., 164. 





Part VII.] THE LORD’S SPEEDY DEATH. 565 


death, as some, not apprehending the matter, have commented, 
but a determined delivering up His spirit to the Father.” 
This Stier, in like manner, says: ‘“‘He dies, as the act of His 
will, in full vigor of life.” In like way speak Greswell, Alex- 
ander, Jones, Baumgarten. If this opinion be correct, and 
Jesus died by His own act, it is not easy to see how it can be 
said that He was put to death by the Jews. His crucifixion was 
indeed, in the large sense the cause of His death, but the actual 
separation of soul and body was by His own volition; it would 
have come in process of time, but He anticipated it. There is 
the strong objection to this, that it clearly tends to the denial of 
His true humanity, and throws an air of unreality over all His 
sufferings. That which would have heen suicide in another, is 
not to be imputed to Him who became very man for our salva- 
vation (Heb. ii. 17). We, thercfore, conclude that, though He 
voluntarily gave Himself to death (John x. 17, 18), and sub- 
mitted to be nailed to the cross, yet that death came to Him as 
to the two malefactors, naturally, not supernaturally; and was 
the consequence of His physical sufferings aggravated by mental 
distress.” 

Many, however, have found difficulty in explaining in this 
way the quickness of the Lord’s death. He was not upon the 
cross, at the longest, more than six hours; while it is well 
known that the great majority of the crucified live at least 
twelve hours; many, one or two days; and some, three or four 
days (Langen). But there seems no valid reason why we may 
not attribute this speedy decease to the physical weakness caused 
by His previous bodily and mental sufferings, superadded to the 
ordinary agonies of crucifixion. That those sufferings were 
most intense. we know from the account given of the hour 
passed at Gethsemane; and that the Lord, already exhausted by 
His great spiritual conflicts with the power of darkness, by the 
excitement and fatigue of that awful night, and by the scourging 
inflicted upon Him, should have died so much sooner than was 


1 So in substance, Pearson, Bloomfield, Stroud, Ellicott. We may perhaps find the 
word éx7véw — (Mark and Luke), “‘ gave up the ghost,’— proof of a life gradually ebbing 
away, a breathing slower and slower to the end. (See Nebe, ii. 365.) The expression in 
John (xix. 30) that ‘‘He gave up His spirit’’(R. V.) no more shows that He died by His 
own yolition at that moment than Stephen’s words (Acts vii. 17), ‘‘ Lord Jesus, receive 
mny spirit,”’ show that he died by his free act. 



















566 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


usually the case, can excite no surprise. Nor do the objections — 
based upon the natural vigor and healthfulness of the Lord’s 
body, the short duration of His mental agony in the garden, 
and the proof of unabated physical strength shown by the loud- 
ness of voice with which He uttered His last words upon the 
cross, seem of much weight.’ 

Those who regard the Lord’s death as a natural event, yet 
one whose quick consummation is not adequately explained by — 
the pains attendant upon His crucifixion, are forced to give an- 
other explanation. Of these, several have been presented. 
One is that of Stroud, that the immediate physical cause was 
rupture of the heart, caused by the great mental suffering He ~ 
endured (pp. 74, 143). Another attributes His death to the 
piercing of the spear, but this is so directly at variance with the 
narrative (John xix. 30, 33) that after receiving the vinegar 
“He bowed His head and gave up the ghost,” and that the 
soldiers, when they came to break His legs. saw that He was — 
already dead, that this explanation may be at once dismissed. 
. But, as the explanation of Stroud, which has its chief support 
in the flowing of the blood and water from the Lord’s pierced 
side, has found much acceptance, we must briefly consider it. 

Does John here narrate a natural or a supernatural event ? 
And with what purpose is it mentioned? That he attached 
some special importance to it, is apparent from his words (verse 
35) which seem chiefly to refer to it, though the reference may 
be to all related by him in verses 32-34. But commentators 
are by no means agreed in opinion that the Evangelist regarded 
it as supernatural.? 

Let us suppose that the Evangelist regarded the flowing 
of the blood and water as a natural event. Why did he men- 
tion it? Some say, to prove the validity of the Lord’s body 
as against the Docetw. (So Coleridge in Stroud: “The effu- 
sion showed the human nature. It was real blood, and not a 
mere celestial ichor, as the Phantasmatists allege.” So, in 


1 As to the pains of crucifixion, and their natural effects in destroying life, see” 
Richter in Friedlieb, Archiiol., 155. 

2 On the one side may be mentioned Calvin who says: “* Hallucinati sunt quidam 
méiraculum hic fingentes; in the same way, Clarke, Tholuck, Ebrard, Ewald, Alford; 
on the other side, Lightfoot, Bengel, Greswell, Meyer, Luthardt, Godet. } 


Part VII.] PHYSICAL CAUSE OF THE LORD’S DEATH. 567 


substance, Alford.) But the reality of His body had been 
proved in a thousand ways during His life; and if His body, 
sensible to touch and sight, was a phantom, so much more 
easily might be this seeming blood and water. But grant- 
ing that the intention of the Evangelists was to show the re- 
ality of His death, how was it thus shown? Are proper blood 
and water here meant, aqua pura et vera, sanguis purus et verus, as 
said by Bengel? No, for this would remove it into the region 
of the superratural. Have we, then, in these terms, merely a 
hendiadys fur reddish lymph, or bloody water? This is inadmis- 
sible. Dves the apostle then mean blood that had decomposed, 
and was thus resolved into crassamentum and serum, or the 
thick red part of the blood and the aqueous transparent part ? 
This is the view taken by many; and it is said that we have in 
this, conclusive proof not only of His death, but that He had 
also been some time dead, since the blood had begun to decom- 
pose. Thus Neander says: “I must believe that John, as an 
eye-witness, meant to prove that Christ was really dead from 
the nature of the blood that flowed from the wound.” 

Admitting, for the moment, that the blood and water were 
the constituent parts of blood now decomposed, whence came 
they? According to Stroud, from the pericardium, into which, 
through the rupture of the heart, there was a great effusion of 
blood, which was there decomposed. The pericardium be- 
ing pierced by the spear, it flowed in crassamentum and serum, 
“a full stream of clear watery liquid, intermixed with clotted 
blood, exactly corresponding to the clause of the sacred narra- 
tive.” Hbrard (563) supposes it to have been extravasated 
blood, that, flowing into some of the internal cavities of the 
chest, there decomposed, and these cavities being opened by the 
spear, the constituent parts made their escape. 

Against all these explanations which are based upon the 
coagulation of the blood, and aside from the physiological objec- 
tions to which they are open, we find an invincible difficuity in 
the words of the Psalmist, that God would not suffer His Holy 
One to see corruption ; and in the declaration of St. Peter, that 
“ His flesh did not see corruption.” His body was not to see 
corruption, or, in other words, the usual processes of decay were 


«fe 


568 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


not to commence in it. Decomposition of the blood can scarcely 
be considered as other than the initial step of corruption. The 

full separation of His soul and His body must take place ; but, 

after this, he “that had the power of death” had no more 

power over the Holy One. 

The explanations of the Griiners who think the Lord not 
wholly dead, and of the Bartholines,' are free from this difficulty, 
since they do not affirm a coagulation of the blood. The former 
suppose that both pericardium and heart were pierced by the 
spear, and that from the former came the water, and from the 
latter the blood. But if it be admitted that there was a consid- 
erable quantity of water in the pericardium, it is difficult to ex- 
plain in this way the flowing of the blood, since the heart of a 
dead person is usually emptied of its blood; or, if any remains, 
it would flow very slowly; and to say that Jesus was not wholly | 
dead when pierced with the spear, is contrary to the sacred 
narrative. (Tholuck zn loco.) | 

The second explanation, that of the Bartholines, supposes 
that the water and blood came from one or both of the pleural 
sacs. It is said that, during the sufferings of crucifixion, a 
bloody serum was effused in these sacs from which, when pierced 
by the spear, it owed out. But aside from the fact that such 
an effusion of bloody serum or lymph as the narrative demands 
is not proved in cases of crucified persons, if indeed, in any case 
whatever ; there is the further objection that such bloody serum 
does not answer to the Evangelist’s “blood and water.” 

The view of Stroud that the Lord died of rupture of the 
heart, has found some medical support.? 














1 See Stroud, 135-137. 

2 Prof. Simpson (in Hanna “ The last Days of Christ,’ N. Y., 1864, app.) endo 
it ‘‘as fundamentally correct.’ ‘‘In rupture of the heart, the blood escapes from 
interior of the heart into the cavity of the large surrounding heart-sac or pericardi: 
which has been found in dissection to contain three or more pounds of blood 
mulated in it and separated into red clots and limpid serum, or blood and water.” 
Dr. Struthers, who agrees with Simpson, speaks of the form of death as “‘a new illus- 
tration of the awful agony which our Redeemer must havesuffered.** But, on the othe: 
hand, it is said by another physician, Biglie, that ‘‘ rupture of the heart is comparatiy 
a rare affection, and that the cases on record are limited to those advanced in life, or te 
such as have been laboring under some degeneration of the structure of the organ.” 
those accepting Stroud’s view, are Ewald, Sepp, Friedlieb. Rejecting it, are West- 
cott, who thinks Stroud’s theory ‘‘inadequate and inconsistent with the f Br 
Luthardt, who says that ‘‘ all the attempts to explain the manner of His death are u 
less.’’ In this general result agree Weiss, Ellicott, Langen, and most. 


— 


Part VII] FLOWING OF THE BLOOD AND WATER. 69 


We conclude, then, that the attempts to explain this phwaome- 
non as a merely natural event, and upon physiological grounds, 
are by no means satisfactory, and that we must regard it as some- 
thing supernatural.’ It is not within our scope to enquire as to 
its special significance. It may have been a sign that the body 
of the Lord was not under the common law of corruption. His 
spirit had departed from it, and with it that vital energy 
which held together its constituent elements, yet disorganization 
and dissolution did not begin. According to Lange, it was a 
sign that a change in the body preparatory to the resurrection 
had already begun ; the power of God was already working in 
it to prepare it for immortality and incorruptibility. The same 
view is taken by Godet: “The body which sin had never 
tainted, moved forward to the resurrection without having to 
pass through dissolution.” 

To explain the facts that the Lord died so soon after the nail- 
ing to the cross, and yet that He still had much bodily strength, 
as shown in “the loud voice” with which He commended His 
spirit into His Father’s hands,’ can be satisfactorily done with- 
out attributing His death to the spear-thrust. He was dead be- 
fore this; this thrust was only to make sure that He was dead. 
To explain the speedy death, we need not say that He put an end 
to His life by an act of His will, or that He died of rupture of 
the heart caused by the mental agony He suffered. The burden 
that had been upon Him all the week of the Passion, His con- 
tests with His enemies, the treachery of Judas, the desertion of 
the apostles, the denials of Peter, the distress in Gethsemane, 
the scourging and abuse, the pain of the cross, the hiding of the 
Father's face — all these serve to show that the Lord died, as 
other men die, through the entire exhaustion of the vital forces. 
It was His last expiring effort when, summoning all His strength, 
He commended His spirit unto His Father. 

It was in the power of governors of provinces to grant pri- 
vate burial to criminals when requested by friends, and this was 


1 Tt is said by Cardinal Wiseman, Lectures, 163, that this was “‘ the concurrent senti- 
ment of all antiquity’; see also, Westcott, additional noteon John xix. for patristic 
interpretations. 

2 Luke xxiii. 46, McClellan supposes that the words “‘It is finished’? were spoken 
in a loud yoice, but the commendation of His spirit, in a low tone. 


570 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL. 


usually done unless they were very mean and infamous.’ But 
for the request of Joseph of Arimathza, a member of the San- 
hedrin, the Lord’s body would probably have been buried in some 
place appropriated to criminals, perhaps where the two male- 
factors were buried. “They that were put to death by the coun- 
cil were not to be buried in the sepulchres of their fathers; but 
two burying places were appointed by the council, one for those 
slain by the sword and strangled, the other for those who-were 
stoned or burnt.”? Pilate could have had no objection to grant- 
ing Joseph’s request, as, on the one hand, his position as a mem- 
ber of the Sanhedrin entitled him to a favorable hearing; and, 
on the other, he was not unwilling that the innocent victim 
should have an honorable burial. That Joseph made the re- 
quest at the solicitation of the disciples, as said by Weiss, is 
possible, but is not intimated. (Mark xv. 45.) He gave the 
body to Joseph; or, more literally, made a gift or present of the 
body to him. According to Mark xv. 44, Pilate was surprised 
that He was already dead; and, calling the centurion who as being 
. on the spot, was aware of His death (verse 39), made inquiries 
how long He had been dead. 

How is this coming of Joseph related to that of the Jews 
(John xix. 31) who asked that the bodies might be taken down ? 
We may suppose that the Jews, who desired that all the crucified 
should be taken down before the Sabbath began, came about 
3 p.M., before the coming of Joseph, and were ignorant of the 
Lord’s death. Joseph may have stood near the cross and heard 
His last words, and thus have known of His death as soon as 
it occurred. He went to Pilate “when the even was come” 
(Matt. xxvii. 57), or during the interval from 3-6 P.m., and 
probably very soon after His death. Going to Pilate, he in- 
forms him of it, and the latter, knowing that sufficient time has 
not elapsed for the execution of the order respecting the break- 
ing of the legs, already given, or at least for their death after 
their legs were broken, is surprised. The Jews, indeed, may 
have made their request after Joseph had preferred his, and 
Pilate may have given the soldiers orders to make sure that 


1 Pearson, Creed, 332; Weiss, iii. 377. 
2 Lightfoot on Matt. xxviii. 58. 


— E 
- ie | ee 


7 
4 


; 


i 


re, 


Part VII} THE BURIAL OF THE BODY. 571 


Jesus was really dead ere He was given up for burial: but the 

former order is most probable. It is not necessary to suppose 
that Joseph knew of the permission already given to have the 
bodies taken down, though he might, as Luthardt thinks, have 
done so. 

Joseph, having received permission to take the body, is aided 
by his servants or by the soldiers; and, taking it down, they 
wrap it in linen clothes with “ myrrh and aloes about an hundred 
pound weight,” which the latter had brought, and lay it in a new 
sepulchre in a garden near at hand which belonged to Joseph.’ 
It has been questioned whether the spices were actually used, 
because of the shortness of time, but John’s words are express 
that the spices were used. It, however, remains doubtful whether 
the customary embalming was then perfected. Lardner (x. 368) 
remarks that “all was done, as may reasonably be supposed, 
after the best manner, by the hands of an apothecary or con- 
fectioner, or perfumer, skilled in performing funeral rites. 
There must have been many such at Jerusalem.” But for this 
there was plainly no time. Norton*® makes the transactions of 
anointing and burying the body to have occupied many hours, 
and the dawn of the Sabbath to have appeared ere all engaged 
in them had left the tomb. But it is more probable that Joseph 
and Nicodemus were themselves able to do all that was neces- 
sary to be done, for there is no reason to suppose that the body 
was embalmed in any Egyptian sense of thatterm. ‘ The Egyp- 
tians filled the interior of the body with spices, but the Jews, 
who buried on the day of decease, only wrapped the body round 
with spices.”° It is probable that all they could do was finished 
before the Sabbath began. If, however, the body was then 
properly prepared for its burial, why did the women, who “ be- 
held the sepulchre and how the body was laid,” prepare addi- 
tional spices and ointments ? It could not well have been as said 
by Weiss, from ignorance of what Nicodemus had done. We 
must, therefore, suppose that this further anointing was some- 
thing customary;‘ or that the first was imperfect, and this there- 


1 Tt is not certain that Nicodemus came till the body had been taken from the 
cross. 
2 Notes, 317. 
# Michaelis on the Resurrection, 93; Greswell, iii. 260, note. 
# Friedlieb, Archaol., 172. 


572 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. {Part VIL 


fore necessary ; or that it was a mark of love which was not sat- — 
isfied till it had brought superabundance.’ 

Some find a contradiction between Mark and Luke in that 
the last speaks of preparing spices and ointments on Friday 
before the Sabbath began, and the first, that they were bought 
after the Sabbath was past. If we admit that the same women 
are meant, which is not certain, it may be that their preparations 
were not completed the first day and were resumed when the 
Sabbath was over. 

The Lord was laid in the tomb on Friday before sunset, and 
nothing further could be done by the disciples, the next day be- 
ing the Sabbath when all were to rest according to the com. 
mandment. But, although He was dead and buried, the rulers 
were not at ease, and the chief priests and Pharisees came to 
Pilate desiring that the door of the sepulchre might be sealed, 
and a watch set, to prevent the disciples from stealing the body; 
alleging, as the ground of their fear, His words, “ After three 
days I will rise again.” At what time this request was made, is 

.In question. It is said by some that they went to Pilate on the 
evening following the burial, perhaps two or three hours later, 
the object being to secure the body before the darkness made 
its theft possible (so McKnight, Bucher, Jones). And if they 
went to the palace, they would have been ceremonially defiled 
and unable to eat the peace offering of that day. But the lan- 
guage of Matthew: “Now on the morrow,” leads us rather to 
think of the morning after, but at how early an hour we cannot 
tell; nor do we know where they met Pilate, whether at his pal- 
ace or not. The whole proceeding was a violation of the sanc- 
tity of the Sabbath. 

Meyer regards all this account as unhistorical, chiefly for the 
reason that the Pharisees could not have heard Christ’s predic- 
tions respecting His resurrection; or, at least, could not have 
thought them worthy of attention; and that if the disciples did not 
understand or believe these predictions, much less would His 
enemies. But this by no means follows. He had openly 


1 Meyer, Greswell; Alex. on Mark xvi. 1. Lange regards the first as only for the 
preservation of the body, and the second as the proper anointing. Jones affirms that, as 
Joseph and Nicodemus were secret disciples, the women had no acquaintance with them 
and did not know their purpose. 





Part VII.] SETTING OF THE WATCH. 573 


spoken of His death and resurrection to His disciples (Matt. xvi. 
21; xvii. 22, 23). This was then unintelligible to them, because 
they truly believed that He was the Christ who would over- 
come all His enemies; and when He was actually crucified, in 
their grief and despair all remembrance of His promise seems to 
have escaped them. To the Pharisees He had spoken of the 
sign of the prophet Jonah as to be fulfilled in Himself (Matt. 
xii. 40); and now that He was dead, they must have thought 
of its actual fulfillment. Besides, it is scarce possible that 
they should not, through some of the disciples, have heard of 
His words respecting His resurrection spoken to them. Judas 
must have known what his Lord said, and may have told the 
priests. They were far too sagacious not to take precautions 
against all possible contingencies. Even if they did not believe 
His resurrection possible, and had no faith in His words, still it 
was wise to guard against the stealing of the body. But it is 
not certain that they did not fear that He would rise. Did they 
not know of the resurrection of Lazarus? and might not He 
who then bade the dead arise, Himself come forth? In their 
state of mind, to seal the stone and set the watch was a very 
natural precaution. 

But why was not the body, when taken from the cross, at 
once taken charge of by the Pharisees, and not delivered into the 
hands of His disciples? Very likely this may have been their 
purpose, and the request of Joseph for the body may have been 
something unknown and unexpected to them; but as it was 
given to him by permission of Pilate they could not interfere. 
It was of no importance in what sepulchre it was placed, pro- 
vided it was secure; and doubtless they knew that it was in the 
sepulchre ere they sealed the stone. When the stone was sealed, 
is not said, but probably sometime during the Sabbath (Matt. 
xxvii. 62). “The prediction of our Lord was that He would 
rise the third day, and till it was approaching they would 
give themselves no concern about His body. The absence 
of it from the tomb before the commencement of that day 
would rather falsify the prediction than show the truth of it.”! 
Perhaps they relied on the sanctity of the Sabbath as a sufficient 


1 Townson, 93. 


574 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


preventive against His disciples, and thought no guard necessary 
till the day was past. Perhaps they supposed at first that with 
His death all cause of apprehension from His disciples had van- 
ished, and that afterward, seeing the boldness of Joseph and 
Nicodemus in the matter of His burial, they began to reflect, 
and this step occurred to them. Of course it was in itself 
wholly unimportant when the stone was sealed, provided only 
that the body was then there. There is no reason to believe 
that they would.give any publicity to their acts, and the women 
who went to the sepulchre the next morning seem to have been 
ignorant of the sealing of the stone and setting of the watch. 

That the account is given by Matthew only, is readily ex- 
plained from the fact that he wrote specially for the Jews, 
among whom the report of stealing the body had been put in 
circulation. It is omitted by Mark and Luke, who wrote for 
another class of readers.’ 


We give a summary of the events recorded as haying taken place 
during the thirty-six hours that elapsed from the burial to the resur- 
rection. They are few: the purchase of spices by the women from 
Galilee after the burial on Friday afternoon, and before the Sabbath 
began, or before sunset; the sealing of the sepulchre and setting a 
watch sometime during the Sabbath; the purchase of more spices 
after the Sabbath was ended, or after sunset of Saturday. Whether 
the visit of the two Marys to see the sepulchre (Matt. xxviii. 1) is to 
be put at the close of the Sabbath, or on the morning following, is 
a disputed point, and we must briefly examine it. There are two 
points, the time of their visit, and its purpose. 

We read, A. V.: ‘‘In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn 
toward the first day of the week, came” etc.; R. V.: ‘‘ Now late on 
the Sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the 
week, came” etc. The interpretation depends mainly on the force of 
the words ’Oyé 5¢ caBBdrwv.2 Do they mean, ‘‘ After the Sabbath was 
ended,” the length of time after being left undefined? Or, ‘‘ Late in 
the Sabbath, but before its end”? (As to éyé, see T. G. Lex., sub 
voce; Winer, Gram., 203.) If we take it in the last sense, the two 
Marys came to the sepulchre just before the close of the Sabbath, — 
the sunset of Saturday. In this way it is taken by Patritius (Lib., 
iii. 546) and by McClellan (512), who remarks: ‘‘ The hour specified 
undoubtedly belongs to Saturday evening, not to Sunday morning.” 


1 See Michaelis on the Resurrection, 98. 
2 As to empaoxw, Meyer, in loco. 





Pe, rs 


Part VII.] GOLGOTHA AND THE HOLY SEPULCHRE. 575 


It is said by Westcott: ‘‘ Mary Magdalene and the other Mary go to 
view the sepulchre just before 6 Pp. M. on Saturday ”; and Edersheim: 
“Tt must remain uncertain whether Saturday evening or early Sun- 
day morning is meant.” But it is a valid objection to Saturday even- 
ing that, if the two women came at this time to see the sepulchre, 
they must have returned to their home again that same evening, or 
have remained watching at the tomb all the night. The former is 
said by McClellan: ‘‘They returned to Bethany”; the latter by 
Chrysostom (Hom. on Matt. 89). But this night-watch is intrinsically 
improbable. Seeing on their arrival the guard there, they must have 
known that no entrance was possible so long as the guard remained. 
If they departed and returned again at early dawn, we must put this 
departure and return between verses 1 and 2 of Matthew xxvilii., of 
which he gives no hint. But the weight of authority is in favor of 
the received rendering. Jt is said by Meyer: ‘‘ We are not to sup- 
pose Saturday evening to be intended, but far on in the Saturday 
night, toward daybreak on Sunday.”! 

The second point is the object of the women in this early visit to 
the sepulchre. By Matthew it is said that they came ‘‘to see the 
sepulchre”; by Mark and Luke that they might anoint the body. 
The discrepancy is unimportant as the one was preparatory to the other. 


Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre. The Lord was crucified at a 
place called in the Hebrew, Golgotha, and His body was laid in 
asepulchre in a garden near by. Thus two points are before us: 
the place of the crucifixion and of the burial; but as these were 
near each other, both may be embraced in one enquiry. The 
site of this sepulchre has been much discussed and with great 
learning and ingenuity, but without leading to any certain re- 
sult. For many centuries the Christian Church received, with- 
out question, the traditionary tomb beneath the dome of the 
present church of the Holy Sepulchre, as that to which He was 
borne, and from which He arose. Of this belief is still the great 
body of Christians. But a large number of modern travellers 
have been led, by a personal inspection of the spot, to doubt the 
tradition, and have brought very cogent arguments against it. 
Fortunately, here, as often, it is of little importance whether the 
traditionary site be or be not the true one. The fact of the 


1 So Rob., Licht., Gardiner, and most. It is rendered by Weizsaicker: Nach 
Ablauf des Sabbats aber in Morgengrauen des ersten Wochentages kamen, ete. For 
early opinions see Maldonatus, in loco; for later, Nebe, Auferstehungsgeschichte. 


576 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


Lord’s resurrection is a vital one, but not whether He arose from — 
a tomb in the valley of Jehosaphat, or on the side of Acra. Nor 
is, as affirmed by Williams,’ “the credit of the whole Church 
for fifteen hundred years in some measure involved in its ver- 
acity.” Few will so press the infallibility of the Church as to 
deny the possibility of its falling into a topographical error. The 
little value attached by the apostles to the holy places appears 
from the brevity with which they speak of them when they allude 
to them at all, Not to the places of His birth and of His burial 
would they turn the eyes of the early Christians, but to Himself 
—the ever-living One, and now the great High Priest at the 
right hand of God. 

But however unimportant in itself, either as confirmatory of 
the Gospel narratives, or as illustrating the Lord’s words, still, 
as a point that has so greatly interested men, it may not be 
wholly passed by. A brief statement of the question will there- 
fore be given, that the chief data for a judgment may be in the 
reader’s possession. It naturally presents itself, first, as a ques- 
tion of topography ; and second, of history. 


The name of the place where He was crucified was Golgotha, a 
skull —kpavlov, Vul. caluaria. ‘‘The proper writing and pronuncia- 
tion of this word,” says Lightfoot, ‘‘ had been Golgolta, but use had 
now brought it to be uttered Golgotha.” The earlier opinion was that 
it was so called, either because of the tradition that Adam was buried 
here, and his skull found here; or that it was the common place 
of execution; but in recent times the name is generally ascribed to 
its shape, as resembling a human skull. 

It may be questioned whether the tradition as to Adam’s being 
buried here was of Jewish or Christian origin; it is, therefore, of no 
value in this discussion. (Langen, 369, thinks it to have sprung 
from the Christian doctrine as to the relation of the second to the 
first Adam.) That it was the place of execution was said by verome: 
Locum decollatorum. (Light., iii. 164; Greswell, iii. 243; Ewald, v. 
484; so Stier.) But it is at least doubtful whether the Jews had any 
one place set apart as a place of public execution; this was not the 
custom of the Orientals. (Langen, 368; Riehm, 525. But see Eders- 
heim, ii. 585.) As the crucifixion of the Lord was the act of the 
Romans, it is most probable that their officers selected the spot where 
it should take place, taking care only that it should be without the 
walls, and in some conspicuous and public place, that the sight might 





1 Holy City. ii. 2. 





Part V1I.] THE NAME GOLGOTHA. 57? 


terrify others. (Bib. Lex., ii. 506; Kitto, Bib. Cyc., i. 779.) But if 
there was a fixed place for public executions, and the Lord was crucified 
here, would a rich man, like Joseph, have had a garden there? This 
is very unlikely. We may rather suppose that the Romans, according 
to their custom, took the condemned to the nearest convenient place 
in the suburbs of the city. That the place of the Lord’s crucifixion 
was one well known, appears from the use of the article (Luke xxiii. 
33): ‘‘ And when they came unto the place which is called ‘The 
skull,’ there they crucified Him.” R. V. (John xix. 17: ‘‘ Unto the 
place called ‘The place of a skull.’” That it was a hill or mount 
is nowhere said; Robinson affirms that neither Eusebius, nor Cyril, nor 
Jerome, nor any of the historians of the fourth or fifth century so calls 
it. The application of this term to the present Golgotha will be 
noted later. 

But if the other derivation of Golgotha be accepted that ‘‘it was 
so called because its form resembled a skull” (T. G. Lex., sub voce), 
then the idea of elevation is conveyed —a skull-shaped hill. It is 
said by Maldonatus that Cyril of Jerusalem first presented this view — 
a forma monticuli humano similis capiti, but gave it up as not reconcil- 
able with the topography. This derivation is now generally held. 
(Reland, Bengel, Bleek, Langen, Meyer, Luthardt, Godet, Edersheim; 
Farrar undecided; Stier, against.) 

Since the name gives us no definite information as to the site of 
Golgotha, we must ask what site best conforms to the narrative. It 
must answer to the following conditions: (a) It must have been with- 
out the city walls (John xix. 17; Matt. xxviii. 11; Heb. xiii. 12). (©) 
It must have been near the city (John xix. 20). (¢) It must have been 
near a rock-hewn sepulchre (John xix. 41; Matt. xxvii. 60) which 
wasinagarden. (d) It must have been near some frequented road 
(Matt. xxvii. 39; Mark xv. 29). 

Two inquiries arise here: 1. How far the traditional Golgotha 
answers to these conditions. 2. How far any other supposed site 
answers to them. 

1. (@) The place of crucifixion was without the city walls. The 
site of the church of the Holy Sepulchre is within the present city 
wall, but it is admitted that the present wall is not the same as then ex- 
isted, and a chief point in dispute is as to the location of that wall. 
Was the site of the Holy Sepulchre within or without it? Josephus 
mentions three walls. (War, v. 4. 2.) With the first built by David 
and Solomon, and embracing Mount Zion, and with the last built by 
Agrippa after the Lord’s death, we have no concern. The question 
concerns only the position of the second wall, which was standing in 
our Lord’s day. To determine its course, Josephus gives us as data 


578 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VII. 


the two termini— the gate Gennath and the Fortress Antonia. He 
states also that the wall did not run in a straight line from one of 
these points to the other, but was curved and encircled the northern 
part of the city. 

The fortress Antonia, one terminus, is well known; but where 
was the gate Gennath, the starting point? The name indicates that 
it was a gate leading to a garden outside the first wall, or at least was 
near one. The north line of the first wall in which was this gate, ran 
in nearly a straight line from the tower of Hippicus eastward to the 
temple wall, a distance, according to Robinson, of some 6380 yards. 
It is generally agreed that Hippicus is to be identified with the 
modern citadel, the castle of David — El] Kalah — near the Jaffa gate. 
(Some dissent from this; Lewin says this is not Hippicus, but Phase- 
lus; Schwartz puts Hippicus far to the north; Fergusson identifies it 
with the present Kasr Jalud— Goliath’s Castle). Somewhere in this 
first wall between Hippicus and the temple area was the gate 
Gennath, of which no sure traces are now to be found, for the gate 
now so called is said by Col. Wilson to be comparatively a modern 
structure. (B. E., iv. 279.) By Robinson, it is put quite at the west 
end of the wall near Hippicus (so Conder, Merrill, Tobler, Wilson, and 
others); by Schaffter and Thrup, quite to the east near to the temple 
wall; and by others, at various points intermediate. (Rob., i. 312; 
iii. 212; Williams, H. C., ii. 14.) 

In this great diversity of opinion the exact position of the gate 
Gennath must be left undecided. As to the general position of Anto- 
nia, the other terminus of the second wall, there is no doubt. It was 
on the north of the temple area; and according to Robinson (iii. 233), 
it extended east and west along its northern side; but by most it is 
placed on the northwest corner. (So Raumer, 389; Williams, H. C., 
i. 409; Merrill.) In this discussion the matter is not important. 

With this imperfect knowledge of the termini, we now ask as to 
the probable course of the wall. As we have seen, it was not straight, 
but curved. Can we, from the nature of the ground, its hills and 
valleys, judge with some probability where it must have run in order 
to have been a defense? Some affirm this, but there is great diversity 
of judgment arising in part from the changes which many centuries 
have made in the whole contour of the ground, the cutting down of 
the hills and the filling up of the valleys; the debris in this part of the 
city having in many places a thickness of from forty to fifty feet. 
(Conder, H. B., 331.) Col. Wilson says (B. E., iv. 278): ‘One 
of the most striking features in Jerusalem is the vast accumulation of 
rubbish;” and it is from this cause that so many reconstructions of 
the city have been proposed, sixteen at least it is said. (See Baede- 








Part VII.] COURSE OF THE SECOND WALL. 573 


ker, 155, for several of them.) Unable in this way to come to any 
certain result as to the course of the second wall, we ask, Are there 
any visible remains of it by which we can trace its course? Robinson 
(ili. 190, 206, and 218) discovered in the present wall at the Damas- 
cus gate some ancient remains, which he identifies with the guard 
houses of a gate of the second wall, and the identification is accepted 
by Williams, DeSaulcy, Merrill, Wilson, and others. In this case, 
our investigations are narrowed down to the course of the wall from 
the gate Gennath to the Damascus gate. But later explorations have 
made this identification doubtful. (Recoy. Jer., 216.) They may 
have belonged to the third wall, that of Agrippa. 

Similar remains have been found in an angle of the present wall 
near the Latin convent (Rob., ili. 219), which are said by Merrill to 
liave belonged to the second wall; others question this. Are there 
other traces of the second wall? It is said by Dr. Merrill: ‘‘ In 1886 
I had the good fortune to discover what is unquestionably the second 
wall. . . . This was ten or more feet below the surface of the 
ground, and twenty feet of it were exposed; its direction was north- 
west to southeast. Had the southern end been extended a few yards, 
it would have touched the tower of David about in the middle of the 
north side; near that point must have been the gate Gennath.” (Qt. 
St., January, 1886; see also articles in Qt. St., April and July and 
October by Conder, Schick, and Mrs. Finn.) Assuming that the re- 
mains of the wall at the Damascus gate are those of this second wall, 
a line drawn in circle touching the tower of Antonia, the Damascus 
gate, and the newly discovered wall, would run far to the north and 
west of the Holy Sepulchre, and exclude forever its claims.” In 
a later communication (Sunday School Times, June 1, 1889), Dr. 
Merrill affrms that six points of the second wall are now known, 
and that the Holy Sepulchre must have been within it. But on 
the other hand, some, taking the same termini, so draw its course 
that the sepulchre is without it. (So Schick; see Qt. St., January, 
1888, for plan of the second wall; also that for April of same year.) 
Tn favor of the present site, it is said that a gateway and part of a 
wall have been found east of the Holy Sepulchre, which are remains 
of the second wall. (Friedlieb, 191; contra, Merrill, S. S. T., June 
1, 1889.) As the matter now stands, nothing very positive can be 
said as to the course of the second wall, and therefore nothing 
positive as to the position of the Holy Sepulchre, whether within this 
wall or without it; this, future explorations must decide. 

(6) The second condition to be met is that Golgotha should have 
been near the city (John xix. 20). Some infer from this passage that 
the inscription was read from the city, but this is not warranted. 


580 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


(For another reading, see R. V. margin: “The place of the city 
where Jesus was crucified was nigh at hand.” Some press this so 
far as to make Golgotha within the city.) 

(c) The third condition is, that very near the place of crucifixion 
was a garden in which was a rock-cut sepulchre. That this con- 
dition is fulfilled in the traditional tomb, is affirmed by some and 
denied by others. It is affirmed that other ancient tombs are found 
not far removed from the traditional one, proving the fact that 
an ancient Jewish burial-place existed here. It is said by Wilson 
(B. E., iv. 284): ‘‘To the west of the Rotunda there is a chamber 
containing several receptacles for bodies, similar to those seen with- 
out the city.” Willis, quoting Schultz (H. City, ii. 194), speaks 
of ‘‘a rock-tomb formed, long before the church was built, and 
probably belonging to an old Jewish sepulchre of an age prior to 
the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.” The tomb is known 
as the tomb of Joseph of Arimathza and of Nicodemus. ‘‘The ex- 
istence of these sepulchres,” says Stanley (452), ‘‘ proves almost to a 
certainty, that at some period the site of the present church must 
have been outside the walls of the city; and lends considerable prob- 
ability to the belief that the rock excavation, which perhaps exists in 
part still, and certainly once existed entire, within the marble casing 
' of the chapel of the Holy Sepulchre, was at any rate a really ancient 
tomb, and not, as is often rashly asserted, a modern structure in- 
tended to imitate it.” (So Adler, Der Felsendom, Berlin, 1873.) New 
tombs have been found under the Coptic Convent, of which Schick 
gives a plan and description. (Qt. St., July, 1887.) He says, that 
these prove the existence of rock-hewn tombs in this vicinity before 
the church of the Holy Sepulchre was built; and that they also tes- 
tify to the genuineness of the tombs in the Western Rotunda. On 
the other side, Robinson denies the antiquity of all these rock- 
tombs. This rock-hewn tomb of Joseph vas in a garden (Matt. 
xxvii. 60; Mark xv. 46; Luke xxiii. 58; John xix. 41. As to gar- 
dens in cities and tombs in gardens, see Hamburger, i. 396.) That 


there were gardens in that part of the city where the Holy Sepulchre — 


now is, finds support from the proximity of Herod’s palace, and the 
name of the gate Gennath. 

(d) The last condition is, that it was near some frequented road. 
(Matt. xxvii. 39; Mark xv. 29.) Such a place the Romans were accus- 
tomed to choose for public executions. But this does not enable us 


to determine in what direction from the city it ran, much less that it — 


was a road especially travelled by the feast pilgrims. 
2. If the traditional site be rejected as not answering to these con- 
ditions, what site answering to them has been presented? Certainly not 





Part VII.]| SUPPOSED SITE OF GOLGOTHA. 581 


that brought forward by Mr. Fergusson, who asserts that the sepul- 
chre was in the rock under the dome of the Mosque of Omar, and that 
this building is the ilentical Church of the Resurrection erected by 
Constantine. (See it as stated by himself in Smith’s Bible Diet., i. 
1018.) It has been accepted by very few and need not be consid- 
ered here. Another site was suggested by Dr. Barclay on the 
side of Olivet, on a spur projecting into the valley of Kidron above 
Gethsemane. Dr. Thomson placed it on the west bank of the Ki- 
dron north of St. Stephen’s gate; Bishop Gobat, ‘‘on the hill just 
outside the walls to the northeast of Herod’s gate,” which Sir Charles 
Wilson also prefers; and still another site is suggested at the junc- 
tion of the valley of Hinnom 

with the Kedron. All these 


: 
1 
are mere conjectures resting { oxy, ai 


a 
upon some local fitness, realor \ <_ 

‘ / ak 
supposed. \ U/ 8 Aarotro 


The view which has attract- 
ed most attention is that Gol- 
gotha is the hill lying without 
the present wall a little north- 
east of the Damascus gate. 
This is probably owing to an 
early suggestion of Robinson 
G. 407), that a frequented spot 
without the gate and nigh to 
the city, ‘‘ would only be found 
upon the western or northern 
side of the city on the road 
leading towards Joppa or Da- 
mascus.” Soon after, others 
began to speak of the hill now 










Church of the 
Holy Sepulchre 


‘called by many ‘‘ Skull Hill,” 


by others, Grotto Hill, above the grotto of Jeremiah, and near the 


_ Damascus gate, as a possible Golgotha; and at the present time it 


has many advocates; some notice of it is therefore necessary. 

It is thus described by Principal Dawson (Modern Science in 
Bible Lands): ‘‘ Skull Hill was originally a part of the Moriah ridge, 
extending northward from it asa short and narrow spur. It con- 
tained a continuation of the fine white limestone which underlies 
the Moriah ridge. Here a quarry was opened, probably as early as 
the building of Solomon’s temple. The quarrying operations were 
finally extended right through the hill, so as to separate the Skull 
Hill entirely from the remainder. This excavation was carried from 


582 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


the city walls on the one side to the grotto of Jeremiah on the other, 
leaving only a round knoll to represent the former extremity of the 
ridge, and even this undermined extensively in the grotto. From 
some cause the quarrying in the hill was abandoned, and the rock 
hollowed under ground in the great quarries under the Bezethan 
quarter.” As to its present appearance, Conder says: ‘‘The hill is 
quite bare with scanty grass covering the rocky soil; not a tree or 
shrub exists onit. . . . The hillock is rounded on all sides but 
the south, where the yellow cliff is pierced by two small caves high 
up on the sides.” Its height is about 40 feet above the surface of 
the ground around it. (Qt. St., April, 1883, p. 69; also Qt. St., April 
and October, 1885. 

What are the claims of this hill to be considered as the place of 
the crucifixion? (a) Its resemblance to the shape ofa skull. This is 
apparent, at least from some points of view, and this resemblance is 
heightened by two caves or hollows in it, natural or artificial, which 
look at a distance like eye-sockets. But this resemblance, however 
striking, cannot have much weight, and some part of it may result 
from later excavations. () It stands outside the probable course of 
the second wall, but whether near it depends on the course of that 
. wall. If it ran north as high as the Damascus gate, the hill is some 
100 yards outside of it, but if this wall did not extend so far north, 
the distance of the hill from it is proportionately increased. (ce) It is 
near a frequented road. The present road to Nablous and Damas- 
cus runs south of it, but hardly so near as to answer to the narrative 
(Matt. xxvii. 39), which implies that those passing by were able tu see 
or Lear what was done or said at the cross. Merrill lays stress on the 
fact, that remains of an old Roman military road from the fortress 
Antonia vo Cesarea ran a little north of the hill, and infers that the 
place of execution would be near it. 

(d@) That a garden was near it, and in it a sepulchre. This is the 
most important point, since the existence of a sepulchre is perma- 


nent, but the position of a cross leaves no permanent traces. Do we — 


find ground to believe that there was a garden near this hill and in it 
a sepulchre? (As to gardens north of the city, see Joseph. War, v. 
2. 2.) This issaid by Edersheim: ‘‘ Close by were villas and gardens.” 
Its entire summit is now covered with Moslem graves, but in our 
Lord’s day the top of the hill, it is claimed, was given up to public 
executions. If so, is it probable that private gardens would have 
been found upon its slopes, and do we find any remains of ancient 
sepulchres? In the western face of this hill is a large tomb, judged 
by its remains to be more Jewish than Christian, and which may 


show that the Jews had used it before the Lord’s day for burial pur — 


Part VIL] GROTTO HILL AND GOLGOTHA. 583 


poses. (Merrill in Qt. St., October, 1885.) In the northwest there is 
a Jewish tomb with several chambers, and other sepulchres are found 
west of the hill. (See Schick in Zeitschrift des Pal. Verein, 9. 74; Con- 
der in Qt. St., 1881, 201; April, 1883. See also Qt. St., October, 1879.) 
But do any of these sepulchres date back to the Lord’s time? 
This is said by Conder, who thinks that he finds in one of these, ly- 
ing 770 feet from the hill, the Lord’s sepulchre (Qt. St., April, 1883, 
with plans). On the other hand, Payne (Bibliotheca Sac., Jan., 1889, 
178) thinks that without doubt it is the tomb of St. Stephen, and is 
too far removed from the place of crucifixion, and also that it is not 
of the right character or date. He affirms that a rock-hewn sepul- 
chral chamber like that in which the Lord was laid, is no where to 
be found about this hill. 

That there is no tradition connecting this hill with the Lord’s 
crucifixion, all admit. That there is a present belief among the Jews 
of Jerusalem that this was the place of public execution —the an- 
cient place of stoning (Levit. xxiv. 14, Num. xv. 35)— is affirmed by 
Conder and Chaplin, and accepted by Edersheim (ii. 585); but Merrill 
admits that it is of no great antiquity and attaches little importance 
to it. That the proto-martyr St. Stephen was stoned here, is a tra- 
dition of the fifth century; but if true, it is, of course, no proof that 
the Lord was crucified here, or that this was the common place of 
execution. (As to early notices of the hill, see Lewis, 108.) 

One or two points remain still to be considered. If, as said by 
Dawson, and generally held, the space between Jeremiah’s grotto 
and the north city wall was, in the Lord’s day, a quarry, it is not 
probable that a part of it would be chosen as a place of crucifixion. 

And it is certain that during the many centuries since intervening, 
great changes must have taken place as to the shape and appearance of 
the hill. It is said by Payne that the present configuration is so recent 
as to be wholly unknown to the early Christians and church historians, 
and even to the whole line of pilgrims to the holy places down to 
medizval times. Another and more important objection to the claims 
of this Hill is, that no one until a very recent date has spoken of it as 
the Golgotha. Had it been the place of the Lord’s crucifixion and 
burial, the memory of it must have been preserved in tradition, since 
it has remained unaffected by all the devastations of the city itself. 
Its conspicuous position, lying without the wall, must have made it 
both known and accessible to all pilgrims; and Constantine could 
not have chosen a more obscure site without some voice being heard 
against it. 

We conclude, then, that there is no sufficient proof that Skull 

























584 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL ~ 


or Grotto Hill was the place of the Lord's crucifixion. (This view, 
perhaps, suggested by Robinson, 1841, stated by Thenius, 1842, 
defended by Fisher Howe, ‘‘ The true site of Calvary,” New York, — 
1871, and advocated by Conder, Merrill, General Gordon, Dawson, — 
and accepted by Edersheim, ‘‘To me this seems the most sacred 
and precious locality in Jerusalem,” needs much additional proof to 
give it probability. See Lewis, The Holy Places, 108 ff. for a fair 
statement of the matter.) 

But if there is no sufficient evidence that this hill was Golgotha, 
still this does not show that the traditional site is the true one. We 
therefore ask, What do history and tradition tell us of the places of the 
crucifixion and burial? Forconvenience’ sake, let us divide the time — 
embraced in our inquiry into three periods: From the Lord’s death 
to the destruction of the city by Titus, 70 A. D.; from this destruc- — 
tion to its overthrow by Hadrian, 136 A. D.; from this overthrow to 
the pilgrimage of Helena, 326 A. D. 

1. 30-70 A. D. It is certain that the places of crucifixion and 
burial were known, not only to the disciples, but to the priests and — 
Tulers and to many of the inhabitants of the city. It is in the high- 
est degree improbable that they could have been forgotten by any 
- who were witnesses of the Lord’s death, or knew of His resurrection. 
As the apostles, according to a commonly received tradition. contin-— 
ued for a number of years after this at Jerusalem, there could be no 
doubt that each site was accurately known to them and their follow- 
ers. Besides, the Evangelists, writing from twenty to fifty years after 
His death, mention distinctly Golgotha and the garden. Down to 
the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, A. D. 70, there can be no 
question that these places were well known. During the siege of the 
city, most or all of the Jewish Christians retired to Pella, but they 
seem soon to have returned. Was the city so destroyed that the former 
site of the sepulchre could not be recognized? This is not claimed 
by any one. Robinson (i. 366) speaks of it as ‘‘ a destruction terrible, 
but not total.” We conclude, then, that the site was known to the 
Jewish Christians after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. 

2. 70-136 A. D. What is known of the Holy Sepulchre during 
this period? It is unquestioned that there was during it a Christian 
church, standing, as some say, on the site of the Coenaculum —the 
‘‘upper room” of the last supper; and it is most improbable, there- 
fore, that knowledge of the places of the crucifixion and the tomb 
should have been lost. Whether pilgrimages began before the end 
of this period, may be questioned; and whether up to the destruc 
tion by Hadrian the sepulchre had been marked by any monument, 


,, 


Part VIL] THE HOLY SEPULCHRE. 585 


does not appear. This is possible, though we cannot believe, as 
assumed by Chateaubriand, that a church was erected upon it. 

3. 136-326 A. D. That the city was not wholly destroyed by 
Hadrian, and that the work of rebuilding began immediately after 
the close of the war, is historically proved. It became in many re- 
spects a new city, taking the name of Aelia Capitolina, by which it 
was generally known for many years. It was in this period that the 
Jewish Christian Church at Jerusalem first elected a Gentile bishop; 
and Eusebius gives a list of his successors, twenty-three in number, 
down to the time of Constantine. Although the general character of 
the new city was heathen through the bringing in of new citizens, 
yet this must have served to intensify the regard of the Christians 
for their sacred places. To this we must add the interest kept alive 
by the visits of pilgrims, for it is well established, that pilgrimages 
to the holy sites were not unfrequent in the second century, and they 
were still more frequent in the next. 

But however strong the probability that the sepulchre was known, 
yet in point of fact, for this period of about 190 years, we hear noth- 
ing of it except what we learn from a statement of Eusebius (Vita 
Const., iii. 26), that impious men had erected over it a temple to the 
goddess Venus, first covering it with earth to conceal it and to get a 
better foundation. It is not clear whether the temple was built by 
Hadrian, or by some enemies at a later period. Jerome (395 A. D.) 
speaks of a statue of Venus which stood upon the spot, and ascribes it 
to Hadrian. This temple to Venus, taken in connection with a temple 
to Jupiter built by Hadrian upon the temple area, and his placing there 
an equestrian statue of himself, seems clearly to show his purpose to 
dishonor both Jews and Christians in their representative sacred 
places — the Temple Mount and the Hill of Golgotha. But if a tem- 
ple was built over the sepulchre, and a statue of Venus placed 
where the cross stood, this would indeed serve to hinder the Chris- 
tians of the city from gathering there, and pilgrims from visiting 
there, but it would not give over to forgetfulness the holy places; 
rather it would tend to keep them in memory. 

Tf the early Christians knew the places of the crucifixion and the 
resurrection, can we believe that they would soon forget them? It is 
obvious that no other places could be so deeply interesting to them, 
and none, in the nature of the case, would be so generally known 
and so firmly impressed on the memory. Few perhaps, knew of the 
birthplace of the Lord, for His connection with Bethlehem was tran- 
sient, and it was many years before the attention of the disciples in 
general was turned to it. The same may be said of the place of His 
ascension; only the eleven were with Him, and there was nothing 


aa 


586 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


monumental to mark the exact spot of His ascent; but all Jerusalem 
and multitudes from Galilee knew where were the cross and sepul- 
chre. And besides the great publicity of His death and burial and — 
resurrection, the supernatural character of the events attending them 
made it impossible that they could be easily forgotten. The cross — 
was soon taken down, but the sepulchre remained its own witness. 
The fact of His resurrection being made the central truth in the Apos- — 
tolic preaching (Acts iv. 2), every circumstance connected with it was — 
thus kept before the public mind. It must be admitted that no 
such regard was at first paid to the sacred places as in later times; 
the hope of the Lord’s speedy return in glory making the disciples — 
comparatively indifferent to the local associations of His earthly life. 
Their faces were turned to the future rather than to the past; and to 
this we must ascribe the fact that the site of the resurrection was for 
many years, so far as we know, distinguished by no monument. But 
this is very far from entire forgetfulness of the place itself. 

But does not the language of Eusebius (Life of Constantine, iii. — 
25, 26) imply, that Constantine learned the site of the sepulchre by 
immediate revelation from God, and that, therefore, it could not 
have been previously known? 

We may make two suppositions :—1. That through the several 

‘overthrows of the city and the devastations attending them, the 
tomb was so far obliterated that all memory of it was lost; and that — 
when the temple of Venus was built, whether in Hadrian’s time or 
after, it was built without any knowledge of, or reference to, the 
tomb. In this case, its discovery by Constantine may well have been 
ascribed by Eusebius to a supernatural revelation. 

2. That the tomb, perhaps hidden under the earth, survived 
these devastations, and that the site of it was known when the tem- 
ple of Venus was built, and that this temple was placed over it with 
the intent to hide it from all eyes, and cause it to be forgotten. But 
this would certainly help to keep it in memory; and we may therefore 
believe that Constantine was not ignorant of its site, and needed no 
special divine guidance when he ordered the temple to be destroyed. 

Taking all the data into account, it seems most reasonable to 
accept the last supposition. Doubtless, the intent of those who built 
the temple of Venus on that spot, was to show their aversion to the 
Christian faith; and their expectation was that the new sect, built 
upon the great delusion or imposture of the resurrection of its 
founder, would soon cease to exist; and that to hide the sepulchre 
from all eyes was a means to that end. But for the continued exist- 
ence of the little church at Jerusalem, and its growing faith in the 
Risen One, this forgetfulness would doubtless have been the result, 





Part VII.] CONSTANTINE AND THE HOLY SEPULCHRE. 587 


On the contrary, the sight of the heathen temple served, in fact, to 
preserve alive the remembrance of the place of His resurrection. 
This best explains the action of Constantine, who, if he had had no 
knowledge of the real site, and now made a selection from among the 
possible places, would not have chosen one so central, and so far 
within the then existing western wall. Some good reason must have 
existed for connecting it locally with the temple of Venus. The 
divine impulse which Eusebius ascribes to him, was not the knowl. 
edge where the sepulchre was to be found, but the desire to build 
there a church in honor of the Lord. Prof. Lewis (100) thinks that 
Constantine ‘‘ built on a site which he fully believed to be that of 
our Lord’s burial, and that he had knowledge to guide him as to its 
correctness.” It is said by Lewin: ‘‘In the days of Constantine not 
the least doubt was entertained where the sepulchre was situated; 
but the only hesitation was, whether, by removing the temple, the 
sepulchre itself could be recovered.” 

It is to be borne in mind that ‘‘ the Invention of the cross,” or its 
discovery by the Empress Helena (326 A. D.), stands in no historical 
relation to the discovery of the site of the sepulchre.’ Besides the 
intrinsic objections, the silence of Eusebius in regard to the inven- 
tion seems conclusive against it, since he was well disposed to be- 
lieve such an account. (Giesseler, ii. 37, note.) We can trace the con- 
stantly growing legendary character of the narrative: at first the Lord’s 
cross was distinguished from those of the two malefactors by the 
title Pilate had attached to it; then through the ordeal of healing a 
sick person; then through the greater miracle of recalling a dead 
person to life. (See Zoeckler, The Cross of Christ, 146.) That Helena 
may have found some pieces of timber and iron belonging to some 
former structure, and which she believed to be part of the cross, is sug- 
gested by Prof. Willis (128), and is very probable. 

The late explorations show that the traditional Golgotha was ele. 
vated above the ground around it; that it was not a high hill is 
shown by the way in which Epiphanius speaks of it, comparing it 
disparagingly with the hill of Zion and the Mount of Olives (Qt. St., 
April, 1880). Robinson ascribes the origin of the term ‘* mount” te 
the fact that the rock of Golgotha was left in the midst of the large 
open court, formerly the garden. According to Willis, the rock of 
Calvary was part of a little swell of the ground forming a somewhat 
abrupt brow on the west and south sides. ‘‘ This would afford 2 
convenient spot for the place of public execution. For the south- 


1 See Winer, i. 487, note 6. Isaac Taylor (Ancient Christianity, ii. 277) argues 
More forcibly than fairly that the whole was a stupendous fraud. 


588 THE LiFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 







western brow of the rock has just sufficient elevation to raise the 
wretched sufferers above the gazing crowd that would naturally ar- 
range itself below and upon the sloping ridge opposite.” Recent ex-_ 
plorations show a rising of the rock as we go north to the holy sepui- — 
chre. ‘‘ From these and other neighboring observations it is clear 
that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre stands on a hilltop, and that 
the ground falls rapidly south of it,” and there is a sharp descent of — 
some forty feet to the north (Qt. St., April, 1880, page 79.) 

In concluding this brief statement, it may be added that, as the 
topographical argument now stands, it is indecisive. Further exca-— 
vations and researches may, however, wholly change the aspect of 
the question. The historical argument in its favor has not yet been 
set aside. Modern opinions are about equally divided. While most 
of the Roman Catholic and Greek writers defend its genuineness, — 
some deny it; and on the other hand, many Protestants defend it.* 


1 See Furrer in Bib. Lex., sub voce. 7 
2 Among those not already cited who deny it, may be mentioned: Wilson, Barclay, — 
Bonar, Stewart, Arnold, Meyer, Ewald, Edersheim. Among those who defend it: Tisch- — 
endorf, Olin, Prime, Lange, Alford, Friedlieb, Lewin, Caspari, Langen, Furrer. Among — 
those who are undecided: Ritter, Raumer, Winer, Bartlett, Stanley, Ellicott. 


PART VIII. 


FROM THE RESURRECTION TO THE ASCENSION; OR FROM SUNé 
DAY, 9TH APRIL (17TH Nisan), TO THURSDAY, MAY 18ru, 783. 
A. D. 30. 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE LORD. 


Before entering upon the details of the narratives of the 
resurrection, it will be well to ask from what point of view are 
these narratives to be regarded. Were they intended to be to their 
readers proofs of the resurrection? This is often said, and ina 
certain sense is true. But the Evangelists wrote for believers, 
that, as said by Luke, they might “ know the certainty concern- 
ing the things wherein they were instructed,” or, as in the mar- 
gin, ‘‘were taught by word of mouth” (R. V.). The fact of the 
resurrection was one of those “most surely believed”; one of 
the first truths taught in the churches (1 Cor. xv. 3). On whose 
testimony did this belief rest? Primarily, on that of the apostles 
whom God had called to be official witnesses (Acts i. 22; x. 41;) 
secondarily, on that of all who had seen Him after He rose from 
the dead (Acts xiii. 31). 

Writing, after so many years, of this great and then every- 
where received fact, which had its own special witnesses, and 
had become an essential article of Christian faith, the Evangelists 
did not take upon themselves the work of proving it to their 
readers by cumulative testimony; for, if this had been their pur- 
pose, they would carefully have cited all the eye-witnesses of 
whom they had any knowledge. But evidently they do not do 
this. Each of them passes by in silence some of the strongest 
proofs; not from ignorance, which in the cases of Matthew and 
John was impossible, and very improbable in the cases of Mark 
and Luke. Their object, was quite another; and to show this, 
We must note some points that have often been overlooked. 

(a) The distinction between the act of resurrection and the 

(589) 


590 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIII. 


subsequent manifestations of the Risen One. The resurrection 
itself no eye beheld; His disciples knew it only as a fact accom- 
plished. How could it be proved? The proof of the empty 
tomb, the grave clothes and the napkin, the testimony of the 
angels —all this was not wholly convincing, and the disciples 
continued to doubt. He Himself must be seen alive; this alone 
was a testimony not to be doubted. It is the death of a man 
that must be proved; of his birth his existence is the conclusive 
and continuous proof. So was it with the Lord. His resurrec- 
tion was His second birth, the beginning of a new and higher 
and permanent form of life. 

(2) The possibility of ever new manifestations. As the Risen 
One He could at any time manifest Himself to men, either in 
person to their senses, orthrough the works done by men in His 
name and by His power. As a living man need not be ever 
referring to baptismal registers to prove the fact of his birth, but 
is his own witness, so the living Lord was not dependent upon 
the Evangelic records to prove that He is risen; if they had 
never been written, the fact of His resurrection remained the 
same, and consequently the same permanent power of proof. 
As this testimony in its very nature could be repeated at His 
pleasure, it could not, therefore, be limited by the Evangelists 
to certain given times and places. It could not be summed up 
as completed and incapable of addition. 

But, when we speak of the Lord as risen, we enter into a new 
region; we meet the phenomena of resurrection life, whose 
laws are wholly unknown to us. So far as we know, none cou'd 
see Him in this new condition of being but those to whom He 
was pleased to manifest Himself. The risen Lazarus couid not 
hide himself from the senses of men, not so the risen Lord. 
The amount of sensible evidence to His resurrection through 
His visible presence or the touching of His body, was, there- 
fore, wholly in His own power. 

(c) The object of these manifestations. The Lord's first step 
was to convince His disciples that He was, indeed, risen —a 
true man, not a phantasm, or ghost,—that through resurrection 
He nad become “the beginning of the new creation,” “ the 
heavenly man.” In Him the disciples should see the noblest 





~ ees ee 


AAAS har IEG VED HE 


Part VIII.] PURPOSE OF THE LORD’S APPEARANCES. 591 


type of humanity — humanity no longer under the law of sin and 
death, but immortal, incorruptible, and having al! fullness of 
life. Not ti. the apostles came to look upon Him as in a condi- 
tion of Seing in which He was to abide, in perfected and immor- 
tal manhood, could they shake off the fear that ever marks all 
intercourse with the disembodied, and attain to that calmness 
and repose of spirit which would enable them to receive His in- 
structions as to their future work. 

(d) The continuity and progressive nature of the Lord’s re- 
demption work. As He Himself was the same Person before 
and after His resurrection, though under differing conditions of 
humanity, so His work was the same though in differing stages. 
And as the apostles had been His helpers in the first stage, so 
should they be also in the second. Their old relation to Him as 
His apostles was not changed, and yet it must be renewed, and 
they be instructed and endowed by Him for the new form of 
their labors. Thus it was necessary, first of all, that the Lord 
convince the apostles of the reality and of the nature of His 
resurrection, and thus enable Him to establish the new relations 
between them and Himself as the Risen One, — relations which 
were to continue during the whole time of His absence in heaven. 
He must first bring them to such measure of faith in Him as 
the Living One, that He could proceed to teach them respecting 
His future work by them after His departure. When this was 
done, He could give the apostles their commission to be His wit- 
nesses to the world, and then ascend to God, and send down 
upon them His Spirit. The period of the forty days was, there- 
fore, filled with sensible manifestations of the Lord, not merely 
as proofs that He was risen, but also that they might know Him 
in the new and heavenly sphere of His activity, and have faith 
in Him as personally teaching and guiding them after He as- 
cended out of their sight. 

Turning now to the narratives of the resurrection, we notice 
in them two chief elements. 1. The attempts of the Lord to 
convince the apostles that He had risen and had entered into a 
new and higher condition of manhood. 2. His teachings and 
directions given them with reference to their future work, when 
they were so convinced. 


592 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD, [Part VIIL ~ 


Before His death He had directed them to go to Galilee, and 
there they should see Him; but it is plain that they had never 
understood what He had said to them of His resurrection, and 
therefore they did not leave the city after His burial. They saw 
others perform the last rites of love ; loving women anointed 
His body as others did their dead, and left it at rest in the sep 
ulchre to wait for the resurrection at the last day. The apostles 
continuing in Jerusalem, it was therefore necessary, first of all, to 
prove to them there that He was risen. They saw that the stone 
was rolled away, but this human hands might have done; they 
saw that His body was not in the sepulchre, but His enemies 
might have taken it away; the folded grave clothes gave no 
certainty. He gives them through the women. the testimony of 
angels, but even this does not remove doubt; He must manifest 
Himself again and again till faith is assured ; this He does now 
to one, now to another. Four or five times He appears on the 
day of His resurrection, the last time to the Eleven, and gives 
them the strongest sensible proofs of the reality of His bodily 
presence. Still, there is one apostle unbelieving, and therefore 
the Eleven cannot yet go to Galilee ; he must be convinced, and 
therefore a week later the Lord appears again to them, and the 
doubting Thomas believes. Now, all can return to Galilee, and 
there He manifests Himself to them, and to the great body of 
His disciples, all doubtless meeting Him according to His special 
direction. 

When the apostles were thus not merely convinced of the fact 
of His resurrection, but had learned in some degree its signifi: 
cance, and been brought into such knowledge of Him as the 
Risen One that He could teach them respecting their future 
work, they could receive their commission to act as His apostles 
in making Him known to the world, as One who was dead but 
now alive again. Recognizing His new relations to them, they 
were prepared to fulfill their new duties. 

Thus we see that to prove the fact of the resurrection by cit- 
ing all possible witnesses, was by no means the chief end of the — 
Evangelists. His resurrection was the beginning of a new and 
higher stage of the Lord’s redemptive work, and it was essential 
that His disciples, and especially His apostles, should be convinced 





Part VIII.] THE COMMAND TO GO TO GALILEE, 593 


of this by His personal manifestations to them, and thus be pre- 
pared to be His witnesses (Acts x. 41; xiii. 31), whose testimony 
the world should believe. But the object of the Evangelists was 
to show, each from his own point of view, how the Lord first 
by repeated revelations of Himself brought the apostles to such 
faith in Him as Risen, that He could instruct them during the 
forty days of His stay on earth, and carry on His new work by 
them after His departure. 

We are not, then, to expect in the Evangelists any full and 
orderly statement of the manifestations of the Risen One, as 
proofs of His resurrection. No one of them designs to give 
anything like a complete summary of the evidence to establish 
it. Of course, every appearance mentioned is a proof; every 
one who saw Him became a witness. But the purpose of their 
narratives is not only to show the fact of His resurrection, but 
also what means He employed to assure them that He had risen in 
true though glorified manhood, the gradual growth of their faith, 
and the nature of the work He commissioned His Church to do. 

In our examination of the Evangelic narratives, we must bear 
im mind that the purpose of God did not include a manifestation 
of the Lord after He rose from the dead to the world at large, 
or to His own covenant people as such, but to those only who had 
believed on Him. And among these the apostles were to be His 
special witnesses, and therefore, to them would He give the 
strongest proofs (Acts i. 22; x. 41). Nor was it His purpose 
to appear to them in Jerusalem, or even in Judza, but in Galilee, 
whence most of His disciples came. This last point claims our 
attention. 

We shall fail to understand the accounts of the resurrection 
if we do not give due place to the Lord’s words spoken after the 
paschal supper. It is said by Matthew (xxvi. 30-32): “They 
went out into the Mount of Olives. Then saith Jesus unto them, 
All ye shall be offended because of me this night, for it is writ- 
ten, I will smite the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall 
be scattered abroad. But after Iam risen again, I will go before 
you into Galilee.” (So in almost the same words in Mark xiv. 
26-28; but they are not given in Luke or John) It is evi- 
dent that the Lord here directs the apostles, who alone were 


594 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIIL 


then with Him, to go to Galilee, promising to meet them 
there (In the angelic message, Matt. xxvii.7: “There shall ye 
see Him”; in His own message, verse 10: “‘ There shall they see 
Me”). Had they had faith in His words, the apostles, beholding 
the Shepherd smitten, would have left Jerusalem after His 
resurrection and returned to Galilee, and there have awaited His 
appearance. But their faith failed them. They saw Him dead 
and buried, nothing remained but to disperse and go to their dis- 
tant homes, their work being ended. The risen Lord finds all 
the disciples lingering around the sepulchre, some bringing spices 
to anoint His body; and He has pity on them, and especially on 
the women who have given Him such proofs of their love. By 
them will He send messages to His apostles, who did not come to 
the sepulchre, and seemed to have lost all faith; He will remind 
them of His final direction to them to go to Galilee, if in this — 
way He can re-awaken their faith. To this end, He commis- 
sions certain angels to speak to the women, and lest the 
angelic messages may terrify and bewilder them, He will even 
Himself appear to them and renew His direction. 

But all this was in vain. The testimony of the women was 
not believed. It is said by Luke (xxiv. 11): “Their words 
seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.” 
(That John believed at his visit to the sepulchre, xx. 8, that 
He had risen, is almost certain ; but if so, he was but one of the 
apostles.) Jesus appears to two of the disciples going to Emmaus, 
that they may testify of Him unto the Eleven; and at last He 
appears to Peter; and then to the assembled apostles, and to 
others with them. But even this personal appearance does not 
convince them all, and lead them to do as He had directed them, 
and go into Galilee. They linger another week in Jerusalem, 
perhaps visiting often the garden, hoping again to meet Him 
there ; and it was not till His second appearance to the Eleven, 
that they were willing to leave the city and go to Galilee. 

Thus we see that a distinction is to be taken between the 
Judean and Galilean appearances after His resurrection. It 
was not in Judea, not in the Holy City where He was crucified, 
that He would manifest Himself as the Risen One ; His appear 
ances there were simply to convince the disciples, especially 





Part VIII] TWOFOLD PURPOSE OF THE APPEARANCES. 595 


the apostles, of the reality of His resurrection, and prepare 
them for His further communications to them. In Jerusalem 
He must die, from the Mount of Olives He must ascend, but 
in Galilee He would gather around Him those who had there 
seen His work, and heard His words, and believed. 

It is apparent that the Evangelists do not avowedly dis- 
criminate these two elements — the first appearances of the Lord, 
whose object was to show the apostles that He had risen, and 
the later, which were to give them instruction and guidance for 
the future — yet they do this in fact (Acts i. 3). Thus Matthew 
mentions the appearance of the angels to the women in Jerusa- 
lem, and afterward the appearance of the Lord to them; all this 
was to assure them that He was risen; His later appearance to 
the Eleven in the mountain in Galilee was to give them their 
apostolic commission. Mark mentions the appearance of the 
angels to the women, and the message given them (xvi. 1-8); 
and in the Appendix (verses 9-18) three appearances of the 
Lord are mentioned —one to Mary Magdalene, one to the two 
disciples, and one to the Eleven at meat, all in Jerusalem. The 
first two appearances did not effect belief, and therefore when 
He appeared to the Eleven, He upbraided them because they 
believed not them which had seen Him after He was risen. 

John mentions the appearance to Mary Magdalene, and after- 
wards two appearances to the Eleven in Jerusalem. The object 
in all these was plainly to beget faith in Him as preparatory to His 
further directions and teaching in Galilee. His appearance at 
a later time to several at the Sea of Tiberias was not to prove His 
resurrection, for all knew that it was the Lord, but to instruct 
them, especially Peter, in regard to their future relations to 
Him. Luke mentions only the appearances in Judza—the 
appearance of the angels to the women, and the Lord’s appear- 
ance to the two at Emmaus, and incidentally that to Peter; and 
then that to the Eleven when He aie before them. Having 
thus proved that He had really arisen, He teaches them what the 
Scriptures had foretold of His death and resurrection, and of the 
preaching of the Gospel by them to all nations. 


596 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIIL 


Sunpay, 17TH Nisan, 9TH Aprit, A. D. 30. 


As the day begins to dawn there is a great earth- MArTrT. xxviii. 2-4. 
quake; and an angel of the Lord, descending, rolls away 
the stone from the door of the sepulchre and sits upon it. 

For fear of him, the soldiers become as dead men. Im- Marv. xxviii. 1. 
mediately after come Mary Magdalene and other women, MARK xvi. 1. 

to anoint the body. As they approach the sepulehre, Luke xxiv. 1. 
Mary Magdalene, beholding the stone rolled away, and JON xx. 1, 2, 
supposing that the body has been removed by the Jews, 

runs to find Peter and John to inform them. The other MARK xyi. 2-8. 
women proceed to the sepulchre, and there meet an an- LUKE xxiv. 2-8. 
gel (or angels) who tells them of the Lord’s resurree- Matt. xxviii. 5-8. 
tion, and gives them a message to the disciples. 

Soon after they have departed, Peter and John, who Joun xx. 3-10. 
have heard the story of Mary Magdalene, come in haste LUKE xxiy. 1? & 24 
to see what has occurred ; and Mary follows them. En- 
tering the sepulchre, they find it empty, and the graye 
clothes lying in order, and John then believes. They 
leave the tomb to return, but Mary remains behind weep- JOHN xx. 11-18. 
ing. Looking into the sepulchre, she sees two angels, 
and immediately after, the Lord appears to her and 
gives her a message to bear to the disciples; and soon é 
after, gives another message to some of the other women. Marv. xxviii. 9, 10. 

‘The accounts of the women seem to the disciples as idle MARK xvi. 9-11. 
tales, and are not believed. Upon the return of the LUKE xxiy. 9-11. 
soldiers from the sepulchre into the city, the priests and Marv. xxviii. 11-15. 
elders, learning what had taken place, bribe them to 

spread the report that the disciples had stolen the body 

away. 


The number of the Lord’s appearances after the resurrection 
during the forty days following, or to His ascension, as given by 
the Evangelists, is generally said to be nine. Of these, five 
were on the day of the resurrection, one on the Sunday follow- 
ing, two at some later period, and one when He ascended. As 
regards place, five were in Jerusalem, one in Emmaus, two in 
Galilee, and one on the Mount of Olives. If to these we add 
that to James, mentioned only by St. Paul (1 Cor. xv. 17), 
which was probably at Jerusalem, we have ten recorded ap- 
pearances. We may well believe that these were not all, 
the language in Acts i. 3,R. V.: “Appearing unto them by the 
space of forty days, and speaking the things concerning the king- 
dom of God,” clearly implying that the Lord met the apostles 
often for instruction, 


Part VIII] ONE OR TWO APPEARANCES? . 597 


To deal with the many intricate details which the Lord’s appear- 
ances present, it will be well to examine each appearance by itself, 
taking them in the order of their occurrence. 

I. The appearances on the day of the resurrection. These were 
five in number: 1. To Mary Magdalene. 2. To the other women. 
8. To the two disciples at Emmaus. 4. To Peter. 5. To the Eleven 
at evening. If we identify that to Mary Magdalene with that to the 
other women, we have four; if we also identify that to Peter with 
that to the two at Emmaus, as Lightfoot, we have only three.' 

1. Thus the first point before us is, Were there one or two appear- 
ances of the Lord to the women, and if two, to whom were they 
made? But before we can determine this, there are some preliminary 
questions to be considered: the number of the women who came to 
the sepulchre; whether all came together, or in two or more parties: 
the times of their arrival; and the several angelic appearances and 
messages. 

(a) The number of the women. We know that a considerable 
number came from Galilee, some of whose names are mentioned: 
Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Salome, Joanna, Susanna, 
and “many others” (Mark xv. 41). Some of these came to anoint 
the Lord’s body as early as possible on the morning after the Sabbath 
(Luke xxiv. 1). Of these, John (xx. 1) mentions Mary Magdalene 
only; Matt. (xxviii. 1) mentions Mary Magdalene and ‘‘the other 
Mary ”; Mark (xvi. 1), Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, and 
_ Salome; Luke (xxiii. 55): ‘‘ The women which came with Him from 
Galilee; and of these are mentioned by name (xxiv. 10), Mary Mag- 
dalene, Joanna, and Mary mother of James. (Susanna is not men- 
_ tioned in the accounts of the crucifixion.) Thus there were five and 
more women; how many more is conjecture. 

(6) Did these women come to the sepulchre together, or in distinct 
.parties, and at successive times? John mentions Mary Magdalene only, 
but it is generally agreed that her words : ‘‘ We know not,” etc., im- 
ply that one, or more, were with her. Matthew mentions two; Mark, 
_ three; do they thus exclude all others? This is said by McClellan 
(514). But the more reasonable view is that no one of the Evangelists 
_ designs to enumerate all who came early to the sepulchre; they men- 
_ tion only those who took a leading part, or whose presence had to 
_ them some special significance. How many women came, who they 
were, whence they came, whether singly or in groups, circumstances 

important indeed in a court of justice, were to them minor matters. 


; 1 An appearance to the Virgin Mary, and that the first of all, is affirmed by Maldona- 
tus, a Lapide, and others, but has no other basis than a desire to honor her. 








598 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIIL 


All agree in this, that the Lord first appeared to some women, but they — 
use great freedom in the arrangement of the details. As we have seen, 
they are not designing to prove the fact of the resurrection by heap- 
ing up evidence, but are illustrating the manner in which the Lord 
manifested Himself, the gradual steps of the manifestation, and the 
difficulty in awakening belief. We are not then to regard the men- 
tion of one or two or more women by name as necessarily exclusive of 
others. Nor does it prove that they came to the sepulchre in so many 
distinct groups. All may have reached it together, or nearly so; the 
Evangelists, for reasons connected with their narratives, making prom- 
inent one or more. But, on the other hand, there is no intrinsic im- 
probability in supposing that there were two or more distinct parties. 
That they lodged in different parts of the city, perhaps some in Beth- 
any, and so came from different quarters, is not unlikely, and if so, 
they would arrive at the sepulchre at successive times.! But the fact 
of successive parties does not decide the question as to one or two 
appearances of the Lord to them. 

(c) The time of their arrival at the sepulchre. Our examination 
of Matthew xxviii. 1, has shown us that as regards the time of 
arrival at the sepulchre, he is in accord with the other Evangelists. 
_ Luke (xxiv. 1) marks the time as ‘‘on the first day of the week, very 
early in the morning” (in R. V., ‘‘at early dawn”); John (xx. 1) as 
‘early, when it was yet dark.” But Mark (xvi. 2) has two designa- 
tions of the time: ‘‘ very early in the morning ” — Xiav rpwt— and “ at 
the rising of the sun ” — dvaref\avros rod #Alov — (in R. V., *‘ when the 
sun was risen”; in Vul. orto jam sole; see W. and H. in margin). 
Assuming that the rendering in R. V. is right — “ When the sun was 
risen,’”’— are the two designations of time inconsistent? As ‘‘early” 
—mpwt—is used of the fourth watch, 3 to 64. M., ‘‘ very early” 
would indicate the first part of this period. As we cannot suppose 
the Evangelist would contradict himself in the same sentence, we 
must conclude that he speaks of the sunrise, not as its appearing 
above the horizon but as bringing in the day, the illumination her- 
alding its coming, or, as said by Ellicott, ‘‘a general definition of the 
time” (so Rob., see however Caspari, 239, who maintains that the 
aorist participle should have been translated, ‘‘ when the sun was about 
to rise, sole oritwro). If this be inadmissible, we may say with Gres- 
well (iii. 283) and others, that ‘‘very early” may be understood of 


1 That, as said in Speaker's Com., Zebedee had a house in Jerusalem near the 
gate Gennath, and near the sepulchre, and that from this his wife Salome and Mary 
Magdalene and the other Mary started, while Joanna, wife of Herod’s steward, started 
with others from the Hasmonean palace on Mt. Zion, more remote, has yery slight tradi 
tional basis. 


Part VIII.] ANGELS AND THE ANGELIC APPEARANCES. 599 


the time when the women first set out, and ‘‘ when the sun had risen,” 
of the time when they reached the sepulchre. 

Tn this discussion as to the time of their arrival, it is necessary to 
keep in mind that at this season of the year the sun rose about half- 
past five, and it began to be light enough to discern objects at least 
half an hour earlier.’ 

As we cannot suppose that the women would leave their homes 
till the day began to break, and yet would endeavor to reach the sepul- 
chre as early as possible, we may place the earliest arrival, that of 
Mary Magdalene, at about 5 a. mM. (so Westcott; McClellan, the first 
arrival at 4.45 a. m.). The only discrepancy as to time of arrival is 
found in the statements of Mark and John. According to the former 
the sun had arisen; according to the latter, it was yet dark —cxorla. 
But this is an indefinite expression, and if strictly taken, is incon- 
sistent with the fact that Mary Magdalene saw that the stone had 
been rolled away, and this apparently while yet at some distance. 

(d) The angelic appearances to the women, and the number of the 
angels. According to John, Mary Magdalene, seeing that the stone 
was rolled away, did not go to the sepulchre or see any angel, but ran 
immediately to tell Peter and John; on her return she saw two angels. 
According to Matthew, the two Marys saw an angel who spake to 
them and gaye them a message to the disciples. According to Mark, 
the two Marys and Salome entered into the sepulchre, and saw there an 
angel who gave them a message. According to Luke, all the women 
saw that the stone was rolled away, and entering the sepulchre, saw 
two angels who addressed them. We thus conclude that there were 
three appearances of the angels to the women. 

The discrepancies as to the number of the angels seen are of 
small importance. We know so little of the modes of angelic exist- 
ence, how they who are ordinarily invisible can make themselves 
visible, what parts were here severally assigned to them, and of the 
grounds of their action, that it is wholly impossible for us to say how 
many may have been present at this time within or around the sepul- 
chre. Doubtless the angelic guards were there watching over the 
body of their Lord all the time it was in the tomb. As said by 
Lessing: ‘‘ They appeared, not always one and the same, not always 
the same two; sometimes this one appeared, sometimes that; sometimes 


1 The following, kindly furnished by Prof. Luther of Trinity College, will be found 
of value: ‘‘I make sun’s declination on the morning of April 9, A. D. 30, 7° 27/7”; time 
of sunrise, 5h. 37m. 24s. apparent time; 5h. 39m. 12s. meantime; twilight begins at 
4h, 28m. approximately.”” See in McClellan, 526, a less accurate statement. Robinson 
(iii. 35) speaks of breakfasting in Northern Palestine ‘ by the dim mingled light of the 
grey dawn and the pale moon, and at 5.10 we were again on our way.” 






















600 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VILL. 


in this place, sometimes in that; sometimes alone, sometimes in com- 
pany; sometimes they said this, sometimes they said that.” Matthew 
and Mark each speak of one angel; in the first, he meets the women 
without the sepulchre, and invites them to enter: ‘* Come, see the place 
where the Lord lay’; in the last, he meets them within the sepul- 
chre, and says to them, ‘‘ Behold, the place where they laid Him.” It 
is impossible for us to say whether the same angel is meant by the 
two Evangelists. Luke mentions two angels seen by the women, 
standing within the sepulchre; and John, that Mary Magdalene saw 
“‘two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, the other at the 
feet, where the body of Jesus had Jain.” 

(e) The messages given by the angels. Matthew mentions one, that 
to the two Marys: ‘‘Go quickly and tell His disciples that He is 
risen from the dead; and, behold, He gocth before you into Galilee, 
there shall ye see Him”; and adds, to emphasize the certainty of this, 
‘*Lo, I have told you.” The message in Mark is almost the same: 
‘Go your way, tell His disciples and Peter that He goeth before you 
into Galilee, there shall ye see Him, as He said unto you.” In Luke 
no message is given, but the women are reminded that the Lord, 
while yet in Galilee, had foretold His crucifixion and resurrection. 
In John, nothing is said of any message given to Mary Magdalene; 
the two angels simply ask her, ‘‘ Woman, why weepest thou?” Thus 
the Lord sent by the angels through the women apparently but one 
message to His disciples—the direction to go into Galilee. The 
Lord’s own message through the women (Matt. xxviii. 10) was a rep- 
etition of this; that to Mary Magdalene was of another character. 

We may now consider the point whether there were one or t 
appearances of the Lord to the women. 

The real ground of the difficulties which some find in regard to 
these appearances lies in this : that the Evangelists use the liberty 
which is given to all chroniclers or historians, to speak of things as 
happening to one or two which in fact happened to more, and 


When Mark says that ‘‘ Jesus went into the borders of Tyre and 
Sidon, and entered into a house, and would that no man should know 
it,” no one supposes that He was absolutely alone; we know 
other sources, and from Mark himself, that the Twelve were with Him 

When John says that Mary Magdalene came to the sepulchre, saying 
nothing of others, this does not show that she came alone. e 
same is true of the other Evangelists The mention of the two Marys 
by Matthew, and of them and Salome by Mark, does not show th a 
no others were with them, or compel us to say that there were two 


Part VIII.| THE ANGEL AND THE EARTHQUAKE, 601 


distinct parties coming at different times. Whether, when Matthew 
speaks of the Lord’s appearing to the two Marys, he is speaking of 
the same appearance which John mentions when Mary Magdalene 
only is named, must be determined by an examination of the de- 
tails and attendant circumstances. 

We now proceed to ask whether the appearance of the Lord in 
Matthew (xxviii. 9, 10) is to be identified with that in John (xx. 14) 
and Mark (xvi. 9). Before comparing them, each account must be 
considered. 

According to Matthew, the two Marys, as they approached the sep- 
ulchre, saw an angel sitting upon the stone that had been rolled back 
from the door. Were they witnesses of the earthquake and of what 
followed? Thisis said by Meyer, Alford, and others. But the render- 
ing: ‘‘ There was a great earthquake,” does not show that this was 
after the arrival of the women.’ It is the more general belief that the 
earthquake was earlier, and that the stone had been rolled away 
before they came. Whether the women saw the soldiers lying as 
dead men before the angel, or whether they had already gone into the 
city, is in question. Some understand the angels’ words ‘‘ Fear not 
ye,” addressed to the women, as marking a contrast between them and 
the terror-stricken keepers. His presence sitting upon the stone, was 
the proof that the stone had not been rolled away by the earthquake 
or by human hands. It was a sign to prove how vain it was to shut 
and seal and guard what the Lord would open. 

The connection between the descent of the angel and rolling away 
of the stone, and of the resurrection of the Lord, is not defined. It 
was the general opinion of the fathers, that He rose and left the tomb 
before the stone was rolled away; the object of this act by the angel 
being, not to give the Lord a way of exit, but to open the way for 
the women to enter. There is no indication that the soldiers saw 
Jesus as He left the sepulchre, and their terror is expressly ascribed 
to the sight of the angel. 

Whether by the ‘‘earthquake,” cecpds, we are to understand a 
literal earthquake, has been questioned. Some would refer it to the 
confusion or commotion which the sudden appearance of the angel 
made among the soldiers keeping watch; others to the shock made 
by the rolling away of the stone, which was very great; others to a 
tempest, or tempest and earthquake.? If, however, it was a literal 


1 It is said by Canon Cook: ‘‘ The aorist declares the fact, not the time of its oc- 
currence”’; and by Riddle: “‘ The aorists have their usual force, but it does not follow 
that the events succeeded the arrival of the women.’’ See Winer, Gram., Trans., 275. 

2 The word means literally ‘‘a shaking’’ without defining the cause. See Matt. 
viii. 24, where it is rendered ‘‘ tempest; *” compare Heb. xii. 26, 27, and Matt. xxi. 10, 


602 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. {Part VIIL 


earthquake, it is doubtful whether it was felt throughout the city, for — 
such an event, taken in connection with what occurred at the cruci- 
fixion, could scarce have passed unnoticed by the disciples. ‘‘ The 
* first earthquake,” says Stier, “extended all over Jerusalem to the 
temple and graves; the second only moves the stone in Joseph’s gar- 
den, and scares the guards away.” ? 

After announcing to the women that the Lord is not in the sepul- 
chre, but is risen as He said, the angel invites them to come and see 
the place where He lay, and then gives them the message to the dis- 
ciples. ‘*‘And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and 
great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word. And behold Jesus 
met them, saying, ‘All hail,’ and they came and took hold of His 
feet and worshipped Him. Then saith Jesus unto them, Fear not, go 
tell my brethren that they depart into Galilee, and there shall they 
see Me.” 


We turn to the account of John (xx. 1-12). Mary Magda- 
lene alone is mentioned, but that she was unaccompanied is not 
probable, the hour being so early; and incidental proof that others 
were with her is found in the use of the plural (verse 2): “ We 
know not where they have laid Him.” (Compare verse 13, where 
the singular is used ; so Norton, Luthardt, Stier, Godet, M. and 
M.) The es whether it was on the traditional site or 
elsewhere, was probably excavated in a rocky ridge, and its 
entrance or door visible at some distance. Mary Magdalene, 
who saw no more than that the stone was rolled away, naturally 
supposed that the body had been taken away, and leaving those 
with her ran to find Peter and John. Whether the two apostles 
lodged together, we do not know. (The inference drawn from 
the repetition of the preposition, ‘She cometh to Simon Peter, 


1 As to the construction of Jewish tombs in the Lord’s time, reference must be 
made to those who have written of them. It is sufficient to say here that the best in- 
formed divide the rock-cut tomb into two classes— Kokim tombs and Loculus tombe. 
In the former, the body is laid in a tunnel cut at right angles with the face of the rock, 
the head being at the further end, and the feet at its entrance. This was the earlier 
form, the loculus tomb is later. In this the body lay parallel with the side of the 
chamber in a cavity or recess. That the tomb in which the Lord lay was of this kind, 
appears from the fact that Mary Magdalene saw the angels sitting one at His head, 
another at His feet, a thing impossible ina kokim tomb. The tombs were closed in sey- 
eral ways, but the rolling stone was most in use at this time. This stone is described as 
round, generally about three feet in diameter and one foot in thickness, with an average 
weight of 600 pounds. Running in an inclined groove, it was difficult to move it back, 
and the shock of an earthquake could hardly have done this. That the tomb in the gar 
den was thus closed, there is little reason to doubt. See Conder, Qt. St., 1869, p. 31, etc, 
also Qt. St., 1876 and 1877; Tobler, Qt. St., 1875, 1878. 





a 


7, 2? eee eS ES lle 


Part VIil.] APPEARANCE TO MARY M. FIRST. 603 


and to the other disciple,” that she found them in separate 
places — so Bengel and others — is notcertain.) Peter and John, 
hearing the words of Mary, immediately run to the sepulchre, 
and enter it to find only the grave clothes and napkin ; no angel 
is seen. They depart, and Mary Magdalene, who must have fol- 
lowed them although her return is not mentioned, and now 
stood by the sepulchre, stooping down looked into it and saw 
two angels, who addressed her, asking why she wept. She turned 
hack, and then she saw the Lord, who addressed her and gave 
her a message to bear to His brethren. 

Comparing the accounts of Matthew and John, do they 
refer to the same appearance? Was Mary Magdalene alone, or 
were others with her when she saw the Lord? That she was 
alone, is the impression which the whole narrative makes upon 
us. Every circumstance indicates this; the Lord addresses her 
alone: “Woman, why weepest thou?” He calls her by name, 
“Mary”; (contrast this with His salutation to the women: “ All 
hail.”) And it is confirmed by Mark’s words (xvi. 9): “He 
appeared first to Mary Magdalene.” It is said that these words 
do not mean that His first appearance, absolutely speaking, was 
to her, but that the first of the appearances related by Mark 
was to her. Thus Robinson: “Mark mentions three and only 
three appearances of the Lord; of these three, that to Mary 
Magdalene takes place first.” But the larger part of the com- 
mentators understand Mark’s words as referring to His first 
appearance to any one after His resurrection, and as showing 
that Mary Magdalene was alone (see Riddle’s note, Har. 270). 

We are led to the same result by considering the Lord’s 
words to Mary Magdalene, and the message He gave her. It 
is not in our province to interpret the words, “Touch me not, 
for I am not yet ascended to my Father,” but the message 
He gave her — “Go to my brethren and say unto them, I ascend 
unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.” 
—must be regarded in its relations to the time and purpose for 
which it was given. It wasnot like thatin Matthew (xxviii. 10), 
@ direction to go to Galilee. What was its significance? It is 
said by Townson, that it was a voucher to the apostles that Mary 
Magdalene had actually seen Him, for He had spoken these very 





74 


604 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


words to them on the evening before His death (John xiv. 12 
28, xvi. 16, 17). Hearing them now repeated from her lips, © 
they could not doubt that He had appeared to her. Admitting — 
that the message might thus serve as a voucher, this does not — 
fully explain its meaning. The Lord seems here to intend 
to recall to the minds of the apostles His last discourse to 
them in its chief themes— His departure to the Father, the 
sending of the Comforter, and their work as His witnesses 
during His absence. Thus, He encourages them to enter upon 
their new work, and to look to Him, as risen and about to go — 
into heaven to be with the Father who loved Him, who also is 
their Father;.and with God, who has all power and can ever 
uphold His servants. Greater works than He had done should 
His servants do, because He ascends unto the Father. Thus 
they were taught that His death did not dissolve their apostolic 
relation to Him; with His resurrection their true apostolic actiy-— 
ity was to begin. It is not congruous with the spirit of this 
message that the Lord should immediately after direct Mary 
-Magdalene to go and tell His brethren to go into Galilee. It — 
would more fitly be given to other messengers. 
Thus comparing the several accounts of the Evangelists, we — 
conclude that the Lord appeared first to Mary Magdalene alone, — 
and afterward to other women; and that His two messages in 
Matthew and John are not to be identified as given to the same 
persons." 
If we accept two appearances of the Lord to the women, one 
to Mary Magdalene alone, and one to other women, in what rela- — 
tions of time, place, and persons do the two stand to each other? 
As to time. We have already seen reason to believe that 
the appearance to Mary Magdalene was the first. But some who 
accept two appearances invert this order. Thus Robinson puts — 
the first appearance to the other women while Mary Magdalene ~ 
was going to call Peter and John. But we thus encounter the ~ 
difficulty that the women first reported a vision of angels (Luke — 


1 Opinions whether there were one or two appearances of the Lord to the women, 
are very evenly divided. For oneappearance: Lightfoot, Lardner, Bengel, Godet, Bium- — 
lein, Caspari, Da Costa, Lichtenstein, Ebrard, Greswell, Krafft, Tischendorf, Wieseler, 
Tholuck, Weitbrecht; undecided, Edersheim. For two appearances: West, Newcome, 4 
Olshausen, Stier, Robinson, Patritins, Friedlieb, Riddle, Gardiner, Ellicott, Geikie, 
McClellan, Farrar, Lange, Sepp, Riggenbach, Stroud, 





Part VIIL.] APPEARANCES TO THE WOMEN. 605 


xxiy. 23), which shows that at this time they had not seen the 
Lord. The order of Giekie, who puts a very little interval of 
time between the two appearances, is open to the same objection. 
According to him, while Mary Magdalene runs to call Peter and 
John, the other women remain in the garden till she returns, and 
while the Lord is yet speaking with her, they approach and wor- 
ship at His feet, and receive His message. Greswell puts the 
appearance to the other women a week after that to Mary Mag- 
dalene. In this he stands alone. As bearing on this point of 
time, we must keep in mind the fact already referred to, that 
the first report from the sepulchre was that of a vision of angels; 
this was all that was known by the two disciples when they left 
Jerusalem for Emmaus. This vision must have been some time 
before any one saw the Lord; and some women must, therefore, 
have been at the sepulchre, and returned to the city and told 
the disciples there of that vision before Mary Magdalene could 
have brought to them her joyful tidings. 

As to the place. Mary Magdalene saw the Lord in the gar- 
den and near the sepulchre; where did He meet the other 
women? Itis said by Matthew (xxviii. 8, 9) that after seeing 
the angels in the sepulchre, they left it, “ and did run to bring 
His disciples word. And as they went to tell His disciples, be- 
hold, Jesus met them.” (In R. V., «And as they went to tell 
His disciples,” is omitted.) It is impossible to judge from this 
account whether He met them in the garden or without it; but 
as the garden could not well have been a large one, we may 
suppose it was without it. On the other hand, the place of His 
manifestation could not well have been in a street of a crowded 
city. Itis not improbable that they were lodging outside the 
city walls, and that He met them at some secluded part of the 
road. 


As to the persons. That Mary Magdalene did not go alone to the 
sepulchre, is most probable. Who were with her? Was the other 
Mary only? Were there two, the other Mary and Salome? Were all 
the Galilean women with her? The most probable supposition is, 
that most of these women, (for there were others whose names are not 
mentioned,) went to the sepulchre, either to help in anointing the 
body or to look upon the place where He was lying. It is not likely 
that all went together, for probably they lodged in several different 


606 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VILL 


places, but as all would go early, they would all arrive at nearly the 
same time. It is easily credible that Mary Magdalene, the other 
Mary, and Salome may have gone together and reached the sepulchre 
first. This group may have been divided into two by the going of 
Mary Magdalene to call Peter and John. In this case the two remain- 
ing women enter the sepulchre, see the angels, receive a message, and 
return back to the disciples in the city. Did another party of 
women, of whom the name of Joanna only is given, come to the tomb 
while they and Mary Magdalene were absent? There is nothing in- 
credible in this, and some affirm it. If so, it must have been to them 
that the vision of angels recorded by Luke (xxiv. 4) was given. 
According to this arrangement, we have: 1st, the vision of angels 
given to the other Mary and Salome (Matt.); 2d, that given to Joanna 
and those with her (Luke); 3d, that to Mary Magdalene on her return 
to the tomb (John). All three were before the appearance of the 
Lord to Mary Magdalene. To which of the groups, the second or 
third, did the Lord afterward appear? If to the second — the other 
Mary and Salome—it must have been after their return from deliy- 
ering the message given them by the angel, since otherwise they, 
having seen Him, would have announced His resurrection. If to 
the third — Joanna and those with her— it could not have been long 
after His appearance to Mary Magdalene. 

On the supposition of two appearances of the Lord to the women, 
several divisions of the persons have been made to show to whom He 
appeared the second time. We may thus classify them: 


1. To all the women together except Mary Magdalene. (So 
Gardiner, Lex., Stroud, Westcott, Riddle, Farrar, Ellicott.) 

2. Toallincluding Mary Magdalene. (So Newcome.) 

8. To the other Mary and Salome. (So West, Stier, Grenville, 
Friedlieb.) 

4. To the three —the other Mary, Salome, and Mary Magdalene. 
(So Townson.) 

5. To the two, the other Mary and Mary Magdalene. (So McClel.) 

6. To Joanna and her party, or to all excepting the two Marys and 
Salome. : 


Thus according to three of the above divisions, Mary Magdalene 
twice saw the Lord, once alone and once in company with others. 
It is said by a Lapide on Matthew (xxviii. 9) that this was held by 
St. Chrysostom, Jerome, and others of the fathers. 

We have not space to give the various arrangements based upon 
the above classification. It will be readily seen that many variations 
of the order will arise if we suppose the women to have arrived at 





Part VIII.]} TO WHAT WOMEN THE LORD APPEARED. 607 


the tomb together, or in two or more groups. Thus Gardiner 
makes but one party, and supposes that while Mary Magdalene 
went to Peter and John, the rest entered the sepulchre and saw the 
angel and received his message, but were then divided into two 
groups —some being so terrified that they say nothing to any one 
(Mark), the others bear the message to the apostles, and subsequently 
return; and it is on this return that the Lord appears to them. On 
the other hand, Riddle makes two parties ——the two Marys and 
Salome who come first to the sepulchre, and while Mary Magdalene 
goes to find Peter and John, the other two enter the tomb, see the 
angel, hear the message, and go back to meet the other women. In 
the meantime, Mary Magdalene sees the Lord, and returns to the city 
to give His message. Her two companions going to the city, meet 
the other women on their way to the sepulchre; returning with them, 
they see the two angels, and on their way back to the city they see 
the Lord. McClellan thinks that there were two parties; the first to 
reach the tomb were Joanna and those with her; a little later came 
the two Marys and Salome; by agreement, the last party goes to find 
Peter and John, the others remaining at the tomb. Peter and John 
visit the tomb and go back to the city, and then all the women enter 
it, see the angels, receive a message and depart, some going to Beth- 
any and some to the apostles in the city. Peter goes a second time 
to the tomb with John and Mary Magdalene; the two apostles return 
to the city, and then Mary Magdalene sees the Lord, and returns to 
give His message to the disciples. After this she visits the tomb 
again with the other Mary, and on the way the Lord meets them. 
Thus Mary Magdalene saw Him twice. 

A point not yet noticed demands attention. Did Peter twice visit 
the sepulchre? We know that he visited it with John; as Luke 
(xxiv. 12) does not speak of John, not a few have said that Luke 
mentions a second visit of Peter alone. The cause of this visit, it is 
said, was the message given him by Mary Magdalene after she saw 
the Lord (so Jones); but McClellan makes the cause of the second 
visit the message of the angel by the women, and thinks that he was 
accompanied by John and Mary Magdalene; it was after this second 
visit that she saw the Lord. But most identify the two accounts (so 
Keil, Friedlieb, Nebe, Gardiner).’ 

This examination of the several narratives shows us how many of 
the data are wanting which are necessary to enable us to form a reg- 


1 The genuineness of this verse (xxiv. 12) has been questioned. It is omitted by 
Tisch. and bracketed by W. and H.; Gardiner retains it, but thinks ‘it may have slipped 
from its proper place.’’ It is retained by Meyer, Keil, Riddle, Friedlieb. 


608 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VILL 


ular, harmonious, and complete history of this eventful morning. 
Each of the Evangelists gives us some particulars which the others 
omit, but no one of them aims to give usa full and connected account. 
To a superficial examination there seem many discrepancies, not to 
say contradictions, but a thorough investigation shows that the points 
of real difference are very few, and that in several ways even these 
differences may be removed. While thus we cannot say of any order 
which we can frame, that it is certain, we can say of several that they 
are probable; and if they cannot be proved, neither can they be dis- 
proved. This is sufficient for him who finds in the moral character 
of the Gospels the highest vouchers for their historic truth. 

To bring before the reader some of the many possible arrange- 
ments of these events, and to show what the special difficulties in the 
way of the harmonists are, we select the following. It will be noted 
that the point which chiefly determines the order, is whether Jesus 
appeared once or twice to the women. We begin with those who 
affirm only one appearance. 

I. Lightfoot. 1. Earthquake and resurrection of Christ. 2. Visit 
of Mary Magdalene and other women to the tomb, which they reach 
just as the sun is up. They are told of His resurrection by the angels, 
and go back to the disciples. 8. Peter und John go to the sepulchre 
followed by Mary Magdalene. They return and she remains. 4. 
Christ appears to her and she takes Him for the gardener. She 
afterward embraces His feet, kissing them. Thus Matthew (xxviii. 9) 
and John (xx. 14) refer to the same appearance. 

Lardner. 1, The women with Mary Magdalene go to the sepul- 
chre and find it empty. 2. Mary, with others, goes to the apostles 
Peter and John. 3. They come to the tomb and then return home. 
4. Mary Magdalene and the others follow the two apostles back to 
the tomb, and remain there after Peter and John are gone. 5. Jesus 
appears to them all there. 6. Mary Magdalene and the others go and 
announce all to the disciples. Here, also, the appearance to Mary 
Magdalene mentioned by John, and that to the two Marys mentioned 
by Matthew, are made the same. 

Da Costa. 1. Thetwo Marys, Joanna, Salome, and others, start 
before daybreak for the sepulchre, and find the stone rolled away. 
2. Mary Magdalene runs to find Peter and John. 3. The other 
women enter the sepulchre, see the angels, receive their message, and 
return to the disciples. 4. Peter and John visit the sepulchre and 
depart home. 5. Mary Magdalene, who had followed them, sees first 
the angels and then the Lord, and returns to the disciples. Here the 
Lord appears to Mary Magdalene only. 








Part VIII.] ORDER OF THE APPEARANCES. 609 


Ebrard. 1. Mary Magdalene visits the sepulchre early while it is 
yet dark. She finds the stone rolled away, and runs to find Peter and 
John. 2. Mary, mother of James, Joanna, Salome, and other women, 
go to anoint the body, and looking into the tomb, see an angel who 
gives them a message. They depart, but dare not report to any one 
what has occurred. 3. Peter and John come to the grave and return 
home. 4. Mary Magdalene, who had followed them, sees two angels, 
and then the Lord. She returns and tells the disciples. Here there 
is one appearance only — that to Mary Magdalene. 

Ii. Arrangements affirming two appearances of the Lord to the 
women: 

Townson. 1. The two Marys and Salome go to the tomb, and 
while they are on the way the angel descends and rolls away the stone. 
They reach it at the rising of thesun. 2. Mary Magdalene goes for 
Peter and John. 3. The other Mary and Salome enter the porch of 
the sepulchre, see an angel, receive his message, and depart in great 
fear. 4. Peter and John come and visit the tomb. 5. Mary Magda- 
lene returns and sees first the angels and then the Lord. 6. Mary 
Magdalene departing, falls in with the other Mary and Salome, and 
to them together Jesus appears the second time. 7. Joanna and her 
party now come, and, entering the tomb, see two angels. They re- 
turn, and confirm to the disciples what the other women had already 
reported. 8. Peter goes a second time to the sepulchre, and finds 
only the clothes. 9. The two disciples set out for Emmaus. 10. 
The Lord appears to Peter. Here are made two successive appear 
ances to Mary Magdalene: first, when alone; second, to her in com- 
pany with the other Mary. 

Newcome. 1. The two Marys, Salome, Joanna, and others, go to 
the sepulchre, and, finding the stone removed, enter thetomb. Two 
angels appear to them, and one gives them a message. 2. They re- 
turn to Jerusalem, and Mary Magdalene communicates the message to 
Peter and John, and the other women to the other disciples.- 2. 
Peter and John go to thesepulchre andreturn. 4. The two disciples, 
having heard the report of the women and of Peter and John, depart 
for Emmaus. 5. Mary Magdalene and the other women follow Peter 
and John to the tomb. She, arriving before them, or following after 
them, sees the angels and afterward the Lord. 6. She joins the other 
women who were near by, and, as they are returning to Jerusalem, 
Jesus meets them. 7. He appears to Peter. 8. He appears to the 
two at Emmaus. Here Mary Magdalene alone first sees the Lord, and 
afterward she sees Him the second time in company with others. 

Lange. 1. The two Marys and Salome go tothe grave. Another 
party -— Joanna and others with her — was to follow with the spices 

26* ; 


610 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VILL. 


and ointments. The former see the stone rolled away, and Mary — 
Magdalene runs to find Peter and John. 2. The other Mary and 
Salome approach and see one angel sitting upon the stone, and after- 
ward another within the sepulchre who gives them a message, and 
they depart. 3. Peter and John visit the sepulchre and return. 4, 
Mary Magdalene sees two angels and then the Lord. 5. Jesus ap- 
pears to the other Mary and Salome on their way to the disciples. 
6. These two fall in with Joanna and her party, and together return 
to the sepulchre and see two angels. 7. He appears to the two disci- 
ples. 8. He appears to Peter. Here the Lord appears first to Mary 
Magdalene, then to the other Mary and Salome. 

Robinson. 1. The two Marys, Joanna, and Salome, and others, 
go to the sepulchre to embalm the body, and find the stone rolled 
away. 2. Mary Magdalene runs to find Peter and John. 3. The 
other women see two angels in the tomb, who give them a message 
to the disciples, and they depart. 4. Jesus meets them on the way 
and renews the message. 5. Peter and John come to the sepulchre 
and return home. 6. Mary Magdalene sees the two angels and then 
the Lord. 7. Jesus appears to Peter. 8. He appears to the two 
going to Emmaus. Here the Lord first appears to the other women, 
and then to Mary Magdalene. 

Westcott.—1.(5 4. Mm.) Mary Magdalene with others goes to the 
sepulchre. She leaves them and goes to find Peter and John. 2. 
(5.30 4. M.) The other women go to the sepulchre, see an angel, and 
receive a message and return to the city. 3. (6 A. mM.) Another party 
—Joanna and those with her—go to the sepulchre and see two 
angels. 4. (6.380 A.M.) Peter and John reach the sepulchre and re- 
turn. 5. Mary Magdalene returning, sees two angels and the Lord. 
6. He appears to the other women as they are coming back to the 
sepulchre. 

Greswell, as has been already observed, makes a second appear- 
ance to the women — the other Mary and Salome — but puts it on the 
‘ollowing Sunday, a week later. 


Let us now attempt to frame a continuous narrative from the 
accounts of the several Evangelists. Very early in the morning 
the women from Galilee to the number of five or more, who had 
been present at the crucifixion and burial, start for the sepulchre 
to anoint the body, probably coming from different parts of the 
city, or perhaps from without it. Perhaps Mary Magdalene 
alone, or with the other Mary and Salome, may have a little pre- 
ceded the others. They knew, for some at least were eye-wit 





Part VIII] PETER AND JOHN AT THE TOMB. 611 


nesses, that a great stone had been rolled to the door of the sep- 
ulchre, and it was therefore a question with them how they 
could roll it away. But they did not know of the sealing of the 
stone and the setting of the watch which took place after the 
Sabbath had begun. As they approach the sepulchre, they see 
that the stone is rolled away; and Mary Magdalene, who natur- 
ally inferred that the Jews had removed the body, in deep excite- 
ment runs to inform the two chief apostles, Peter and John, of 
this fact. The other women continue to approach the sepulchre. 
That the angel was not now sitting upon the stone and visible to 
them, and that the guards were not lying as dead men before 
the door, seem most probable, as otherwise their fears would 
have deterred them from advancing. Seeing nothing, they 
enter the sepulchre. An angel now appears to them, and, after 
bidding them not be afraid, shows them the empty niche where 
the body was laid, and proceeds to announce to them that He is 
risen, and will meet the disciples in Galilee, as He had said to 
them while He was with them. Greatly agitated by what they 
had seen and heard, fear contending with joy, they leave the 
sepulchre and return to the city. 

Soon after their departure, but how soon is uncertain, as we 
do not know where Mary Magdalene found Peter and John, the 
two apostles come running with all speed to determine the truth 
of her account. John, who reaches the tomb first, only looks 
in, but Peter enters, and is followed by John. The body is 
gone; but, examining carefully, they see the grave clothes ar- 
ranged in order, and the napkin lying by itself. John is con- 
vinced by all that he sees that the Lord is indeed risen; but 
Peter only marvels. They seem to have departed very quickly 
again, perhaps to inform the other disciples that the body was 
truly gone; or perhaps they were afraid lest they should be found 
by the Lord’s enemies at the tomb. Mary Magdalene, who had 
followed them back to the sepulchre, did not depart with them, 
but remained standing without, weeping. It is plain from the 
whole narrative that she was under the power of the most intense 
grief, believing that the body of her Lord had been borne away 
by His enemies. While weeping she stoops down to look in, as 
if a faint hope still lingered that she should see Him there, and 


612 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIII. 


sees two angels sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where 
the body had lain. Unlike the other women, who had been 
greatly terrified at the angelic apparition, she seems scarce to 
have noticed them; and to their question, “ Woman, why weep- 
est thou ?” she answers in words showing how wholly her heart 
was filled with her one great sorrow. Lifting her head, for she 
was now looking into the tomb, and turning back, she sees 
Jesus, but does not recognize Him. He addresses her with the 
inquiry, ‘‘ Woman, why weepest thou?” Supposing Him to be 
the gardener, probably because it was natural that he should be 
there, and thinking that he might possibly have taken away the 
body, she addresses Him in words full of passionate earnestness. 
The Lord’s reply, “Mary,” spoken in His own familiar voice, 
recalls her to herself. She recognizes Him, and, prostrating her- 
self, would hold Him by the feet to worship Him. He forbids 
her to touch Him, and gives her a message to His brethren. 
She departs and tells the disciples, but they believe not. A 
little after this, the Lord appears to the two women who had 
been to the city, and who were probably accompanied by others, 
and permits them to worship Him, and gives to them a message. 

Thus we find most probable that there were three visions of 
angels, the first to the two women, the second to Mary Magda- 
lene, the third to the other women; and two appearances of the 
Lord, that to Mary Magdalene, and that to the other women 
returning to the tomb; all closely following each other. As yet, 
these supernatural manifestations were vouchsafed only to the 
women. Peter and John saw at the sepulchre neither angels 
nor the Lord. They found, indeed, the sepulchre open and the 
body gone; but the fact that He had risen, rested solely on the 
testimony of the women. Perhaps the fact that He had not ap- 
peared to any of the apostles, had something to do with the in- 
credulity of the latter, for it was natural to suppose that He 
would first manifest Himself to them (Mark xvi. 11). 

Rumors that the sepulchre was empty must have become 
current among the disciples early in the day, and probably most 
or all of them, or at least of the apostles, visited it, though we 
have no record of their visits. 

The historical accuracy of the account of the bribing of the 





Part VIII.] THE SOLDIERS AND THE PRIESTS. 613 


soldiers by the chief priests and elders, has been often questioned,’ 
but on insufficient grounds. The number constituting the watch 
is not mentioned; some say two, some four; the latter number 
appears oftenest in Art. The watch came into the city, report- 
ing to the chief priests, to whom they were responsible, what had 
taken place at the sepulchre. The priests, who took counsel with 
the elders, may have believed this or may not, but they doubtless 
ascertained to their own satisfaction that the body was actually 
gone. What should they do? Should they report the statement 
of the soldiers to their commander? But to what end? since all 
the facts of the affair must thus necessarily come to the ears of 
Pilate, and become more generally known. As it could not be 
concealed that the body was gone, some plausible explanation 
must be given. What could answer the purpose so well as to 
admit this fact, and say that the disciples had done what they 
attempted to guard against when they set the watch — had 
stolen away the body? But this, if openly said, the soldiers 
would naturally contradict as exposing them to military punish- 
ment, and the priests would therefore gently hint it rather than 
expressly affirm it; and in this way it would spread among the 
people as a rumor, and gradually gain credence. To guard 
against any denial on the part of the soldiers, these must be 
bribed to admit that the story set afloat by the priests was 
true. They would not affirm the absurdity that they knew 
what the disciples were doing while they were sleeping; but 
would merely keep silence as to what they had actually seen, 
and not deny that they might have been asleep, and that the 
theft of the body might possibly have occurred. Of course 
this report thus secretely circulated would soon become cur- 
rent, and by most of the Jews be believed.?, Whether it ever 
reached the ears of Pilate, we do not know; probably he very 
soon left Jerusalem for Caesarea, but if it did, he might be 
bribed to pass their offense by in silence. Very probably, he 
was not much displeased at the disappearance of the body, or 
grieved at the discomfiture of the priests and Pharisees, 


— 
1 See Meyer, én loco. 
2 See the excellent observations of Jones, Notes, 483, 


614 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIIL 


Sunpay, 177TH Nisan, 9TH Aprit, 783. A.D. 30. 


Early in the afternoon two of the disciples leave Jeru- Luke xxiy. 13-82. 
salem for Emmaus, As they go, Jesus joins Himself to Mark xvi. 12. 
them, and converses with them till they reach the village. 

At their urgent request He sits down to eat with them, 

and as He is breaking the bread, their eyes, which were 

holden that they should not know Him, are opened, but 

He immediately vanishes out of their sight. Theyreturn Luke xxiv. 33. 

at once to Jerusalem, and find the Eleven and others gath- Mark xvi. 18, 14, 
ered together, who meet them with the announcement Luke xxiv. 34, 35 
that the Lord is indeed risen and has appeared to Simon. 1 Cor. xy. 5. 

But the account of the two disciples that they had 

also seen Him at Emmaus, is disbelieved. While yet 

speaking together, Jesus Himself stands in the midst of Luke xxiy.36-48. 
them, although the doors are shut, andsalutesthem. He JOHN xx. 19-23. 
convinces them of the reality of His bodily presence by 

showing them His hands and His feet, and by eating be- 

fore them. He breathes upon them, and gives them the 

power to remit sins, and opens their understanding to 

understand the Scriptures. 


The name of one of the disciples going to Emmaus was 
Cleopas (Luke xxiv. 18). Many identify him with Cleophas, 
Clopas, or Alpheus, the husband of Mary (John xix. 25). It is 
most probable that he was a different person. (So Meyer, Keil.) 
The name of the other disciple is not given. Lightfoot sup- 
poses him to have been Peter himself; it was early a very 
common opinion that he was Luke, the narrative seeming to be 
that of one present, and that the Evangelist through modesty 
did not mention his own name. Wieseler (431), who makes 
Cleopas to have been Alpheus, makes the other the apostle 
James, his son ; and this the appearance mentioned by St. Paul 
(1 Cor. xv. 7). Another early tradition calls him Simon. It was 
formerly said by some that the two mentioned in Mark xvi. 12, 
whose names are not given, were different persons, but this is 
not now held by any. 

The place to which the two went was Emmaus. Josephus 
mentions three places of this name; one on the Lake of Gali- 
lee near Tiberias (War, iv. 1. 3), another sixty furlongs from 
Jerusalem, where eight hundred Roman soldiers were colonized 
(War, vii. 6. 6); and still another, a city mentioned in connec- 
tion with Gophna (Antiq., xiv. 11. 2; War, iii. 3. 5), and after 





Part VIII.] POSITION OF EMMAUS. 615 


wards known as Emmaus Nicopolis. (See Winer, ii. 325.) The 
distance he gives of the second of these places from Jerusalem 
coincides exactly with that of Luke (xxiv. 13). But there is 
some question as to the right reading in Josephus, whether 
thirty or sixty stadia; the last is generally accepted. (See T. 
G. Lex., sub voce.) 

We have three data in Luke for identifying Emmaus — its 
name, its distance from Jerusalem, and its designation as “a 
village” —x@pn. The name is defined by Josephus (War, iv. 
1. 3), speaking of the town near Tiberias as “signifying warm 
water — 6épua — the name being derived from a warm spring 
which rises there, possessing sanative properties.” This warm 
spring still exists, and is the same mentioned in Joshua (xix. 35), 
and called Hammath. But it does not appear that there were 
ever any warm springs at the other two places spoken of by 
Josephus. The name Emmaus, therefore, does not of itself show 
that there were hot springs at each place so called; it might be 
given to a place where were springs affording water for baths, 
whether cold or artificially heated. That the Emmaus Nicopolis 
of Josephus had any hot spring does not appear, though there 
was one there with medicinal properties (in T. G. Lex., erro- 
neously said ‘noted for its hot springs”; Lightfoot, x. 298; 
Hamburger, ii. 172; for present conditions Baedeker, 138). 
Nor are there now hot springs anywhere in the neighborhood of 
Jerusalem, or indeed, in Judea, whatever may have been the 
case formerly. Baths, warm and cold, were found in all the large 
cities. We may, therefore, conclude that the name Emmaus 
was sometimes applied to places where were springs, hot or cold, 
and with or without baths. Thus the name gives only this 
much of positive result, that the Emmaus which we seek must 
have been at some place where were springs and an abundance 
of water, and probably baths. 

The second datum is its distance from Jerusalem — sixty 
furlongs. The oldest and most prominent claimant is Emmaus 
Nicopolis, which lies in the plain of Judah about twenty miles 
west from Jerusalem, a village a little to the left of the road 
from Ramleh, and now called Amwas (Rob. ii. 265 and iii. 37). 
The claim is supported by Robinson, mainly on the ground that 


616 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIII. 


itis the traditional site: ‘For thirteen centuries did the inter- 
pretation current in the whole Church regard the Emmaus of 
the New Testament as identical with Nicopolis.” But tradition, 
to which Robinson is not usually so deferential, cannot over- 
come the intrinsic difficulties lying in its remoteness from Jeru- 
salem. To do this, he must deny the genuineness of the received 
reading in Luke of sixty furlongs, and maintain that the read- 
ing found in some manuscripts of one hundred and sixty fur- 
longs, is the true one. This correction of the text is accepted 
by few. But if we accept it, it would take some five or six hours 
to go from Jerusalem to Emmaus, and if the two disciples left 
the city at twelve m., they would not have reached the village 
till near six p.m. Allowing that only a very brief time was 
spent in preparation for the evening meal, and that after it they 
returned with all haste, they could not have reached Jerusalem 
till near midnight. Considering the habits of the Orientals, it 
is very improbable that on their return they found the disciples 
assembled together at that hour, nor is it likely that the Lord 
would have chosen it to make His first appearance to them. 
We have, moreover, some marks of the time when the two met 
the disciples. Mark (xvi. 14) says: ‘‘He appeared unto the 
Eleven as they sat at meat.” John (xx. 19) says that when He 
appeared to the Eleven it was evening — éyia — and this was 
probably “the first evening,” which began at three p.m. and 
ended at sunset. As the sun at this season set soon after six 
o’clock, and there is but a short twilight, the two from Emmaus, 
on arriving at Jerusalem, probably found the disciples at their 
evening meal, or soon after it. All this shows that the two 
must have reached Jerusalem at least early in the evening, and 
that Emmaus must have been within easy reach of the city. 

The third datum is the designation by Luke of Emmaus as 
a “village”; but Emmaus Nicopolis was “a city,” a large and 
important place, not a village. 

Upon these grounds, we must believe that the Emmaus of 
Luke cannot be placed at a greater distance than he has placed 
it — sixty furlongs, and was not Emmaus N. Robinson himself 
was earlier of this opinion (Bib. Sacra., 1845, 181), and said that 
the distance of Emmaus Nicopolis was too great for the dis- 


Part VIL] POSITION OF EMMAUS. 617 


ciples to have returned the same evening, aud concluded: “ We 
must therefore abide by the usual reading.” (See the note in 
Bonar's “ Land of Promise,” Index, 537. Most reject the claims 
of Emmaus Nicopolis, Meyer, Godet, Keil, Edersheim.) 

Setting aside Emmaus Nicopolis, there are three other places 
which have their advocates. The first of these is a village called 
El Kubeibeh, lying northwest from Jerusalem, and on the road 
to Lydda. Its distance from the city, as measured by the Ger- 
man architect Schick, is very nearly sixty furlongs, though 
others make it a little more. It has in its favor a tradition dat- 
ing from the crusades, or perhaps earlier. Baedeker (142) 
speaks of it as having many ruins, and a beautiful situation. 
There is a fountain, but not very copious, and no traces of any 
baths. But Robinson finds no tradition earlier than the four- 
teenth century, and denies that there are any grounds in its 
favor but its distance from Jerusalem. 

The second is Kulonieh, a village a little northwest of Jerusa- 
lem on the road to Joppa. Its name is derived by some from the 
Latin Colonia. If this be the derivation, it answers to the state- 
ment of Josephus respecting the colonization at Emmaus of the 
Roman soldiers. The distance, however, does not correspond 
with Luke’s statement, for it is less than sixty furlongs from Jeru- 
salem. (Hdersheim, ii. 638, says forty-five furlongs; Conder, Qt. 
St., 1885, 348, only thirty-five furlongs.) A good spring is 
found there, and it was, and still is, a place of pleasure resort 
for the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Some advocates of this site 
connect it with a Motsa mentioned in the Talmud and identified 
with Kulonieh, whence willows were brought to Jerusalem for 
the feast of Tabernacles. (So Caspari, 242; Conder, Tentwork, 
25.) Edersheim (ii. 639) rejects this on the ground that Kulon- 
ieh was northwest of Jerusalem, while Motsa was south of it. 
He accepts a view presented in Qt. St., (1881, 237) that puts 
Emmaus between Kulonieh and Kubeibeh. ‘Between these 
places is Beit Mizza, or Hammoza, which I regard as the real 
Emmaus. It would be nearly fifty-five or about sixty furlongs, 
sufficiently near to Kolonieh (Colonia) to account for the name, 
since the colony would extend up the valley, and sufficiently near 
to Kubeibeh to account for the tradition, that this was the Em- 


618 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIIL 


maus of the crusaders.”’ (See Qt. St., 1881, 274, and 1884, 247. 
In favor of identifying Kulonieh with Emmaus, Sepp, Caspari, 
Woolf in Riehm, Henderson, Oosterzee, Godet; contra, Rob. iii. 
158.) 

A third claimant is found in Khamasa, where some ruins 
were found by Capt. Conder, not far from the Roman road 
which passes by Solomon’s pools south of Jerusalem. ‘“ Ancient 
rock-cut sepulchres and a causeway mark the site as being one 
of considerable antiquity, and its vicinity is still remarkable for 
its fine supply of spring water” (Qt. St., 1879, 107). Khamasa 
is eight miles southwest of Jerusalem according to Conder, but 
others make the distance nine to ten miles. As this identifica- 
tion is said to be given up by Conder who first presented it, it 
need not be further discussed. (But it still appears in his « Hand 
Book,” 1882.) 

There is still another claimant in Urtas, a valley a little east- 
ward of the main road from Bethlehem to Hebron, and about 
a mile from the pools of Solomon at El Burak, and probably 
the Etam of the Old Testament. (Rob., iii. 273.) Its claims 
were first presented by Mrs. Finn (Qt. St., 1883, 53), who for 
ten years had made diligent personal search all around Jerusa- 
lem to find the true Emmaus. Its claims rest upon its distance 
from Jerusalem, about sixty furlongs; the existence there of 
Roman baths; and its name of Latin origin — Urtas — a corrup- 
tion of hortus, a garden; all these pointing to its identification 
with the second Emmaus of Josephus. It has a large and noble 
fountain, and by this the valley is watered and not from Solo- 
mon’s pools. Tristram (B. P., 70) says: ‘The valley is now a 
blooming garden, and many most interesting proofs of its wealth 
have been exhumed, especially a beautiful set of marble baths 
built after the Jewish fashion, with rich carving in the Egyptian 
style.” These Mrs. Finn supposes to have been Roman baths, 
and to point to a residence there of the discharged Roman sol- 
diers mentioned by Josephus. Here is plenty of water, and re- 
mains of baths, such as are not found elsewhere in the vicinity 
of Jerusalem. The Arabic name Hammam, which, according to 
Conder, is used of any bath, hot or cold, was applied to these 
remains by the natives, and would well answer to the name 





Part VIII.] RECOGNITION OF THE LORD. 619 


Emmaus. But that this name was the old one, and that it was 
later changed by the Roman soldiers from Emmaus to Hortus 
and corrupted into Urtas, is only a probable conjecture. 

As the evidence now is, the choice seems to lie between Kubei- 
beh and Urtas. Both would satisfy the conditions as to distance, 
and both have springs. In favor of Kubeibeh is a tradition, 
though of late date, and its proximity to Kulonieh; in favor of 
Urtas, its name, and its baths, and the possible remains of an 
old fortification. The question can be settled only by further 
local examination, and we must for the present regard the site 
of Emmaus as an unsolved problem. 


The time when the two disciples left Jerusalem is not mentioned, 
but it was probably about noon or soon after. At the time of their 
departure they had heard of the appearance of the angels to the 
women, and of the visit of Peter and John to the sepulchre, but not 
of any appearance of the Lord (Luke xxiv, 22-24). As the distance 
was only some eight miles, they may have reached Emmaus a good 
while before sundown, but it is to be remembered that the Lord gave 
them much instruction by the way (verse 27), making it probable that 
they went slowly. 

When the Lord met the two, He was not recognized by them, 
Luke says (verse 16): *‘ Their eyes were holden that they should not 
know Him.” This some have thought discrepant with Mark’s state- 
ment (xvi. 12) that ‘‘He appeared in another form — ép érépg poppy 
—unto two of them.” The latter expression may refer to His previ- 
ous appearance to Mary Magdalene by whom He had been mistaken 
for the gardener,’ or to another form than that before the resurrection. 
That His bodily aspect was in many points after the resurrection un- 
like what it had been before, we cannot doubt, though it is impossi- 
ble for us to tell wherein those distinctions consisted. (See John 
xxi. 4.) Still the language of Luke implies that there was no such 
change as to forbid His recognition; and that, in this case, except the 
eyes of the disciples had been specially holden, they would have 
known Him. As said by Alexander: ‘‘ Luke gives the cause, Mark 
the effect.” ‘‘ Their eyes were opened and they knew Him, and He 
vanished out of their sight ” (Luke xxiv. 31).? Rising up the same hour, 


1 So Lardner. 

2 The explanation of the failure of the disciples to recognize the Lord during the 
forty days, would demand an enquiry into the nature of the resurrection body which 
would be foreign to our purpose. But the explanation which assumes a process of bodily 
glorification, and so a progressive change of appearance (Meyer, Godet, Edersheim), has 


620 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIIL 


they returned to Jerusalem, reaching it probably early in the evening, 
joy <t again beholding their Lord adding wings to their feet, and find 
the Eleven’ as they sat at meat. The place where the apostles were 
assembled was in all probability the same in which they had eaten the 
paschal supper, and to which they returned from the Mount of Olives 
after the Ascension. 

First appearance of the Eleven. Before we consider the memora- 
ble events of this evening, some preliminary points must be discussed. 
Is this appearance to the Eleven, as narrated in Luke, the same as 
that in John xx. 19 and in Mark xvi. 14? This is generally held, 
but it will be well to examine each account and compare them. 

It is plain from John’s words: “ Then the same day at evening, 
being the first day of the week, . . . came Jesus,” etc., that this 
was the Easter evening. Luke’s statements of the time are equally 
clear. But Mark’s designation of time (xvi. 14) is wholly indefinite, 
“* Afterward — icrepov — He appeared unto the Eleven.” Some, there- 
fore, refer this statement to the second appearance to the Eleven 
(John xx. 26); others hold that Mark sums up in a general way the 
events which John distinguishes as on two successive Sundays. Two 
circumstances, however, in Mark’s narrative give a note of the time; 
one, that they ‘“‘sat at meat,” the meal being then probably over. 
John does not mention this circumstance, nor Luke, though it is im- 
plied in the Lord’s question, ‘‘ Have ye here any meat?” Another 
note of time is the Lord’s reproof which, as we shall see, fits better 
to the first than to the second appearance, a week later. But on the 
other hand, there are some discrepancies between Mark and Luke as 
to the reception of the testimony of the two disciples from Emmaus. 
Mark says (verse 13): ‘‘ And they went and told it unto the residue, 


yery little in its favor. If this means, as it seems to do, that the material body of the 
resurrection gradually lost its material element, and became at last a spiritual, é. e. imma- 
terial body, this is contrary to all the teaching of the Church. The common belief is 
expressed by Leo: Resurrectio Domini non finis carnis, sed commutatio fuit, nec vir- 
tutis augmento consumpta substantia est. Wholly without any ground in the narratives 
is Godet’s attempt to explain the Lord’s sudden disappearance from the two at Emmaus 
— ‘He vanished out of their sight’ — by saying that the body was now partially glori- 
fied, and so ‘‘ obeyed more freely than before the will of the spirit." The ground taken by 
some, as Rothe, that the Lord’s body at the resurrection had no material element, and 
that from time to time, in order to manifest Himself, He took a body as a man might 
put on a garment, need only be mentioned. (Nebe, Auferstehungsgeschichte, 136.) 
The assumption that His glorified body as such, was invisible, cannot be granted. (2 
Peter i. 16: ‘‘ We were eye witnesses of His majesty.”) But it may be said as in the 
Speaker’s Com.: ‘ Recognition, in all cases of appearance between the resurrection and 
the ascension, depended on the spiritual state of the witnesses and upon His own will.” 

1 Strictly speaking, only ten of the apostles were there. It is a fancy of Casparis 
that Matthew was not present, having already gone into Galilee. 





——— ares eee 


Part VI11.] DISBELIEF OF THE ELEVEN. 621 


neither believed they them.” Luke says (verses 33-35) that, when 
the two found the apostles, they were met with the joyful cry: ‘‘ The 
Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.” These words 
seem to declare their firm belief that He had risen. 

But before considering this supposed disagreement between Mark 
and Luke, we must ask how is this statement in Luke to be recon- 
ciled with the statement immediately following, that, when Jesus 
actually stood in the midst of them and spake to them, ‘‘ they were 
terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit?” 

é is not surprising that in their agitated state of mind they should at 
one moment have believed, and at another have disbelieved. As said 
by Bengel: Credebant sed mox recurrebat suspicio et ipsa incredulitas. 
Here two circumstances are to be taken into account: first, that when 
the Lord met the two disciples on their way, there was nothing in His 
appearance or manner to suggest a supernatural person. He was a 
man like themselves, an ordinary traveller; and it was not till after a 
long conversation that they knew Him in the breaking of bread. 
But His appearance to the Eleven was sudden; the doors were 
closed. How found He admittance? When He earlier appeared to the 
apostles walking upon the sea in the night (Matt. xiv. 25, 26), ‘‘ they 
were troubled, saying, It is a spirit, and they cried out for fear.” 
It is not strange, therefore, that now suddea doubts should arise 
in their hearts as to the reality of His resurrection. Did they indeed 
see Him or only His ghost? 

Another circumstance is to be taken into account. The two dis 
ciples reported that He had been with them on their walk to Em- 
maus, perhaps joining them soon after leaving Jerusalem, and leaving 
them only at evening, and yet He had also been seen by Peter in the 
city. Here were seemingly contradictory accounts. Ignorant of the 
properties of His resurrection body, and the power of sudden transi- 
tion from place to place, they might say that if He was with the two 
at Emmaus at the time they said, He could not have appeared to 
Peter in Jerusalem, and that the appearances, therefore, were not true 
bodily appearances, but phantasmal. 

We do not, then, find anything inconsistent in the two statements 
of Luke. The events of the day had convinced all the disciples 
that the Lord had left the sepulchre, and was near them in some 
form, nor did they question Peter’s witness; but had He really risen, 
or, were they now seeing an apparition? It was to convince them of 
the reality of His resurrection that He said to them: ‘‘ Handle me 
and see,” and afterward called for food and ate before them. 

Returning now to the statement of Mark (xvi. 13) that the twa 


622 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIIL 


disciples told of the Lord’s appearance to them “unto the residue, 
neither believed they them”; it is in question whether in *‘ the resi- 
due” the apostles are included. Jones denies this, but most include 
them. If so, the unbelief and hardness of heart in Mark which the 
Lord reproved, are the same as the doubts and fears in Luke; the 
accounts are consistent. 

We may here ask in what chronological relations did the appear. 
ance to Simon Peter (Luke xxiv. 34) stand to that to the two dis 
ciples? Some place it before (so Jones, Godet); some after (Eders., 
McClel., Rob., and most). It was most probably a little after the two 
left Emmaus on their return, as it was generally known to the disci- 
ples when they reached the city. Some have connected this appear- 
ance to Peter with a second visit to the sepulchre (Luke xxiv. 12), 
following the tidings of Mary Magdalene that she had seen the Lord 
in the garden; and if Peter saw Him at this time, it was before 
He appeared to the two. But there are two questions here; the first 
as to the text. Tischendorf omits verse 12, W. and H. bracket it; 
but others, Godet, Meyer, Keil, would retain it, and it is kept in R. 
V. But accepting it, does it show that Peter went a second time 
alone to the tomb, or is it a summary mention of the earlier visit of 
Peter and John? The last seems most probable, and is most in har- 
mony with the generality of the language in the account preceding. 

Turning to the account in John (xx. 19), we find it in some points 
like that in Luke, but in some, unlike. They have in common the 
proof that the Lord gave of His real bodily presence, by showing 
the disciples His hands and His side,' but John omits the eating be- 
fore them. Luke does not speak of the shut door, but implies it in 
the fear that fell on them when they saw Him standing among them. 
John says that the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord, but 
this must refer to the time when He had convinced them that it was 
He Himself, not a spectre. But all do not identify the account in 
Luke with that in John as the appearance of the Lord on Easter 
evening; some saying that he has generalized the accounts of Jobn, 
embracing the first and second appearances; and others, that he 
speaks of the second meeting only (John xx. 26). The last is 
maintained in the Speaker’s Commentary. The grounds of this will 
be considered in speaking of the ascension. 

What is peculiar to John is the renewed commission to His apos- 
tles, the imparting of the Holy Ghost, and the authority to remit and 
retain sins. Of this act of the Lord, and of the accompanying words 


1 In Luke xxiy., verse 40 is omitted by Tisch. and bracketed by W. and H., dut 
its omission is of no importance as to the point before us. 


x 





Pe tk 


Part VIII.] SIGNIFICANCE OF HIS FIRST APPEARANCE. 623 


in their theological bearing, we are not called to speak, but they are 
of i portance to us as a renewal of the apostolic commission. As in 
His last prayer (John xvii. 18), He said of the apostles: ‘‘As Thou 
hast sent Me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the 
world,” so here addressing them He says: ‘‘ As my Father hath sent 
Me, even so send I you.” Thus they learned that His death and 
resurrection made no change in their official relation to Him; that 
they were still His apostles, and with a new commission, and a min- 
istry yet to be fuifiiled. To fulfill this ministry they must receive the 
Holy Ghost. The significance of His breathing upon them, whether 
as a means for the giving of the Spirit, or as significant of His new 
life and a proof of His resurrection, belongs to the commentators. 
The power to remit and to retain sins clearly looked forward toa 
holy church, and implied such close communion with Him, though 
absent, that their acts were truly His acts. 

We may here sum up the significance of these several appearances 
on the day of the resurrection. 

The fact that the Lord was risen was shown by the empty sepul- 
chre, and by the word of the angels: ‘‘He is not here; for He is 
risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.” But 
into what condition of being had He entered? Was His body real or 
only phantasmal? What were His relations to His disciples? What 
was He about todo? All was in their minds vague, confused, uncer- 
tain. His first step therefore was to convince them that His resur- 
rection was but a new form of His manhood. He was the same Jesus; 
His old relations to them were unchanged. His work was to go on, 
the apostles were to continue to be His helpers, the continuity of His 
Person and of His work was unbroken. 

It is from this point of view that His words and acts on Easter 
Sunday are to be regarded. All tended to establish such community 
between the Lord as the First born from the dead and the disciples 
that they should see in Him the same Teacher and Master as of old,— 
One who, though risen, was still carrying on the work He had begun 
before His death, and who would fulfill all His promises to them. 
Thus by degrees the resurrection was seen to be only a new step in 
the one purpose of redemption, and with joy, not with fear, should 
they wait in Galilee for His appearing. 


Sunpay, 24TH Nisan, 167TH Aprit, 7838. <A. D. 30. 


After eight days Jesus again appears to the assembled JOHN xx. 26-29. 
apostles, Thomas, who had been before absent, now being 
with them. By showing him the prints of the nails and of 
the spear, as he has demanded, and desiring him to touch JOHN xx, 24, 25. 


624 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIIL 


them, the Lord convinces him of the reality of His resur- 
rection; and Thomas acknowledges Him as his Lord and 
his God. 


A week passed away, and the apostles were still lingering in 
Jerusalem. Why was this? Some say, because they were 
waiting for the expiration of the paschal feast, which lasted seven 
days. But Lightfoot says, that although on the first day no one 
was permitted to exceed the limits of a Sabbath day's journey, 
and on the second, no one might go home because of “the ap- 
pearance before the Lord,” which then took place, yet on the 
third, one might go if necessary. It is said by Stier that the Lord’s 
direction to go to Galilee presupposed their tarrying through 
the feast. This is not at all probable; but even if so, the 
feast was now ended, yet they remained. The cause of their 
delay to go to Galilee was probably the unbelief of Thomas, 
who was not present at the Lord’s first appearing, and who 
refused to believe the testimony of others, and demanded the 
proof of both sight and touch. Possibly there were others of 
the disciples yet in doubt, and unwilling to leave the city, but 
probably most of those from Galilee had gone back to their 
homes. 


How the apostles spent the week, we are not told; but probably 
they often visited the garden, and may have assembled every evening 
in the accustomed place in the hope that He would appear again to 
them. But why did not those who believed go to Galilee? Because 
they had now learned that their witness to the Lord’s resurrection 
and their work for Him must be done by them as one body, as an 
apostolic college, and they must, therefore, continue together. If 
Thomas was still unbelieving, thus preventing any united action, they 
must wait the Lord’s further direction before taking any new step. 
It thus became necessary that He should manifest Himself again to 
the assembled apostles at Jerusalem, that Thomas might be convinced 
and the apostolic unity be maintained. (See Edersheim, ii. 646.) 

The place where the Lord met the Eleven was in all probability 
the same where He met them before, and this is generally accepted.’ 
The hour was doubtless also in the evening, though this is not said. 
He suddenly appeared among them, the door being shut as before, 
and renewed the salutation: ‘‘ Peace be unto you.” 


1 Caspari is an exception. “According to him the apostles left Jerusalem for Gak- 
lee immediately after the paschal season, and this manifestation took place at Capernaum 
or Bethsaida, and is the same as that mentioned by Mark xvi. 14, 15. 








Part VIIL.] THE LORD SEEN BY THOMAS. 625 


Thomas was now withthem. Why he was not present at their first 
meeting, we are not told; most say that, being naturally skeptical, he 
disbelieved the reports of the other disciples. This may be, but that 
he was not wanting in love or courage is shown in the matter of Laz- 
arus (John xi. 16). The proof which the Lord gave him that it was 
He Himself now standing among them, was of the character that He 
had before given the ten—the evidence of his senses. Whether 
Thomas actually put his finger into the print of the nails, and his 
hand into His side, is in question. It was affirmed by Calvin and 
others, and apparently by Ellicott (403, note). but most deny it. (So 
Meyer, Luthardt, Edersheim; see Nebe, Auferstehungsgeschichie, 
228.) It is said by Hengstenberg that it was the Lord’s knowledge 
of Thomas’s words and their repetition (verse 27), which was the con- 
vincing proof to him that the Lord was really before him; others 
more probably ascribe his conviction to the impression which the 
Lord’s whole appearance made upon him. The words of reproof 
addressed to Thomas: ‘‘ Because thou hast seen Me thou hast be- 
lieved,” were in their measure applicable to the other apostles, for 
they had refused at first to listen to the testimony of the women, and 
were not convinced of the reality of His resurrection till He gave 
them sensible evidence. 

The point whether the appearance to the Twelve mentioned by 
Paul (1 Cor. xv. 5) was either of those already spoken of, or that 
upon the day of His ascension, will soon be considered. This was the 
sixth and last of the earlier Judwan appearances. The apostles now 
go to Galilee to meet their Lord there. 


Aprit— May, 783. A.D. 30. 


The apostles having returned to Galilee, the Lord 
appears to some of them while engaged in fishing upon JOHN xxi. 1-23, 
the lake. The miracle of the great draught of fishes is 
repeated, and He feeds the seven with fish and bread. 
After they have eaten, He commands Peter three times 
to feed His sheep, and signifies his future death and the 
protracted life of John. 
After this, He appears upon a mountain to a great Marv. xxviii. 16-20. 
body of disciples, and commands that the Gospel be 1 Cor. xy. 6. 
preacheé and disciples baptized throughout the world. Mark xvi. 15-18. 


How long after the Lord’s second appearance to the assem- 
bled apostles they remained in Jerusalem, we are not told. It is 
said by Hengstenberg that they went to Galilee the next day; 
this is probable. It is also probable that they continued to- 


7 


626 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VILL 


gether, and went to the same place on the sea of Galilee, which 
we may believe to have been Capernaum. Six persons are 
mentioned as going to fish with Peter, of these five were of the 
apostles, their names being given. Were the other two apostles? — 
(Some affirm this; so Lightfoot, who thinks them to have been — 
Andrew and Philip, in this followed by Hengstenberg and oth- 
ers ; contra, Meyer, Godet, Nebe.) It is a point which we have 
not data to decide. That He appeared to these seven and not te 
the eleven apostles, seems to indicate some symbolical meaning 
lying under this number. (As to the many points of resem 
blance which this miracle has to that at the beginning of the 
Lord’s Galilzan ministry, see Trench, who also refers approy 
ingly to Augustine’s symbolical interpretations.) 


This first appearance in Galilee after His resurrection, leads us to — 
contrast it with the Lord’s earlier appearances in Judea. The object 
of the latter was, as we have seen, to prove to the disciples the reality 
ef His resurrection as preparatory to His further instructions; and 
this had now been done. They were in Galilee waiting for His com 
ing to them. That the seven in the ship did not at first recognize 
Him standing on the shore several hundred feet distant— ‘* They 
knew not that it was Jesus” (compare xx. 14)— may have been 
owing in part to the distance, and perhaps to the indistinct morning 
light, but more to His changed appearance. But so soon as He is 
recognized, and it is John who first recognized Him, He is again 
their Lord as of old, and proceeds to give them food —it is not said 
whether He Himself ate of it—and then holds a conversation with 
Peter, the purpose of which is to renew his commission to feed His 
flock. He also intimates to him the manner of his death, and answers 
his questions respecting the future of John (verses 18-22). It was 
now understood by Peter, and doubtless by them all, that their real 
apostolic work was about to begin under His guidance, who, though 
absent, would direct them when and where to cast the net. 

It is said by John (xxi. 14) that ‘‘ this is now the third time that 
Jesus showed Himself to His disciples, after that He was risen from 
the dead.” It is generally understood that the Evangelist here 
speaks of manifestations made ‘‘to the circle of disciples, not to indi- 
vidual persons” (Meyer; so most). It is said by Dwight that 
‘¢<third’ refers to the third appearance recorded in this Gospel before 
a company of the apostles.” It is clear that in his three-fold enumer- 
ation John refers to the apostles as constituting the most important 
class of the disciples, although in each case he speaks of an appear- 





Part VIIl.j APPEARANCES MENTIONED BY ST. PAUL. 627 


ance to the disciples — ya@yrai — not to the apostles. Caspari thinks 
‘third ” refers to the third appearance of which John was a witness. 

It is said by Meyer and others that these three appearances cannot 
be made to harmonize with the statements of Paul (1 Cor. xv. 5, 6). It 
will be necessary therefore, at this point, to examine the apostle’s 
words. 

The appearances mentioned by St. Paul. Does he design to give a 
chronological outline of all the appearances he knew of? (So Stein- 
meyer; contra, Wieseler.) His words are: ‘‘ He was seen of Cephas; 
then of the Twelve; after that, He was seen of above five hundred 
brethren at once; . . . after that He was seen of James; then of 
all the apostles; and last of all, He was seen of me also.” Thus, ex- 
cluding the last as out of our present enquiry, Paul mentions five 
appearances. The first, that to Cephas— Peter —has been already 
spoken of, being mentioned by Luke (xxiv. 34). Is the second, that 
to the Twelve, to be identified with that on Easter evening, or with 
that a week after, or with that just before the ascension? Or is it 
an appearance not mentioned by the Evangelists? There is no good 
reason why it is not to be regarded as the same as that on Easter even- 
ing (so Lightfoot, McClellan, Stroud, Rob., Westcott; but Gardiner 
identifies it with that on the second Sunday evening). The use of 
the term ‘‘ Twelve” here decides nothing, since this is the designa- 
tion of the apostolic college, whether all were present or not. 

The third appearance, that to the five hundred brethren, is not 
mentioned by the Evangelists; whether it is to be identified with that 
to the Eleven at the mountain in Galilee (Matt. xxviii. 16) will be 
soon considered. 

The fourth appearance mentioned by Paul is that to James; of 
this also the Evangelists say nothing. When and where was it? If 
the apostle follows the chronological order, it was after that to the five 
hundred; but it may have been either in Galilee or in Judea. What 
James was this? Some say the apostle James, the brother of John (so 
Steinmeyer), but most, James the brother of the Lord. (So Estius, 
in loco: Porro doctorum omnium sententia est ; Bp. Lightfoot, Gal., 260; 
Meyer.) If to the last, it is most probable that the Lord appeared to 
him in Galilee where he dwelt with his brothers, and soon after He 
Himself went to Galilee. It is generally believed that this appear- 
ance to James was the means of convincing him and his brothers that 
Jesus was the Messiah, as all appear in the upper room after His 
ascension (Acts i. 14).? 


1 As to the apocryphal story in ‘The Gospel according to the Hebrews,” it is re- 
jected by Estius and most, See Hofmann, 393, 


628 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD, [Part VIIL 


The fifth appearance was to ‘all the apostles.” This is usually 
identified with that mentioned in Acts i. 6, when He led them out to 
the Mount of Olives. But why say ‘‘all the apostles” rather than 
““The Twelve”? Some say that here a secondary class of Apostles is 
included (so Bp. Lightfoot, Meyer); others that a contrast is put 
between James as one of the apostles and all of them taken collect- 
ively, or between James as not an apostle and the apostolic college. 

That St. Paul mentions these appearances in the order of time, 
is probable, the adverbial particles indicating this (so Meyer; contra, 
Wieseler); though a long interval elapses between the last appear- 
ance to the apostles and that to himself. That he mentioned all the 
appearances he knew of, is scarcely possible, though the principle of 
selection is not clear; he doubtless selected them with reference to 
the peculiar circumstances of the Corinthian Christians. 

Returning now to the assertion of Meyer, that John and Paul con- 
tradict each other, we ask wherein the contradiction lies? That each 
mentions appearances not mentioned by the other is plain; that either 
of them professes to mention them all, is not said, or implied. 

The only appearance of the Lord in Galilee mentioned by Mat- 
thew is that to the eleven disciples (xxviii. 16). Is this the same as 

- the appearance to the five hundred? This is generally affirmed, but 

on differing grounds. Some find a proof that there were others be- 
side the apostles present, in Matthew’s words, ‘‘some doubted” (so 
Rob.). They think that none of the Eleven, to whom the Lord had 
said, ‘‘ Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” remembering the past appearances 
of the Lord to them, and that they were now gathered expressly to 
meet Him, could have been among these doubters. If not, others 
must have been there; and as most of His Galilean disciples had not 
seen Him since His resurrection, it would not be surprising if some 
among them should doubt. To this may be added, as confirmatory, 
the fact that the Lord’s direction by the angel to the women to go 
into Galilee was general, embracing all the disciples. Thus it is 
made possible that five hundred were now present; though some 
limit them to the Seventy. But this proof is not at all conclusive. 
Matthew’s words seem clearly to state that some of the apostles 
doubted (so Meyer, Keil, Nebe; for early opinions, see Maldonatus in 
loco). The grounds of this doubt will be considered later. The fact 
of their doubting does not, however, show that the five hundred 
disciples were not there with the Eleven. (This is held by many, 
Lightfoot, Norton, Ebrard, Stier, Alford, Ellicott, Nebe). 

But is it probable that the commission (verses 19, 20) would be 
given to the apostles in the presence of all? or are we to regard the 





Part VIII.] APPEARANCE TO THE FIVE HUNDRED. 629 


commission as given to all? If given to the apostles, as the leaders 
and representatives of the church, as held by most, there seems 
a propriety in commissioning them in the presence of all the dis- 
ciples. But some affirm that these words of Matthew do not refer 
to any special commission, or were spoken on a single occasion, but 
are a very brief summary of the Lord’s teachings during all the forty 
days; and others, who hold that they were spoken to the apostles 
only, think them spoken in Jerusalem or on the Mount of Olives, 
just before the ascension. (So Maldonatus, a Lapide.) But if this 
view be held, it excludes the presence of the five hundred; for it is 
not possible that such a gathering could have taken place at Jerusa- 
lem and not have been disturbed by the Pharisees and rulers. 

It has been said by some that the five hundred assembled in Jeru- 
salem the week following the resurrection, thus distinguishing this 
appearance to them from the later appearance to the Eleven, which 
was in Galilee (so Dwight, in Godet, ii. 537). This is in all respects 
improbable. 

The mountain in Galilee where the apostles met the Lord accord- 
ing to His appointment, is not named. It was, doubtless, one of those 
near the lake of Galilee; some have said the mount where the sermon 
was delivered (Matt. v. 1); others, that where He was transfigured 
(Matt. xvii. 1); others, that where He chose the Twelve (Mark iii. 
13); or, possibly, that on the east side of the lake where He fed the 
five thousand (John vi. 13).? 

When the Lord made the appointment for this meeting, we are not 
told. It may be that in His direction before His death to go to Gali- 
lee this mount was mentioned, but more probably it was not till later 
at one of His appearances to the Eleven. Wherever the five hundred 
were gathered, both the time and the place must have been definitely 
known, and the notice have been early and widely given. 

If some of the apostles doubted, of what did they doubt? 
Whether they should offer to Him worship?” It is not indeed any- 
where said that He had before been worshipped by them; and now 
something new and divine in His aspect may have impelled them to 
the act (see Matt. xxviii. 9, John xx. 23). But their doubts could 


1 Tt was a tradition current during the middle ages that it was the northern peak 
of the Mount of Olives, which had the name of Galilee. It is spoken of by Maunde- 
ville, A. D. 1322 (Early Travels, 177), as ‘‘ Mount Galilee where the apostles assembled 
when Mary Magdalene came and told them of Christ's ascension.”’ This tradition has 
recently been defended by Hofmann (Leben Jesu, 395), vut is wholly untenable. There 
is no mention in the New Testament or in Josephus of any mountain called Galilee; 
only the province is so called. Ewald, Jahrbuch, 1856, 196; Nebe, Auferstehungs 
geschichte, 340. 

2 So Wetstein, quoted in Meyer; De Wette, Lange. 


630 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIL 


scarce refer to this. Did they doubt of His personal identity? 
Some have thought that He was so far from them that all could not 
at first distinctly see Him; others refer their doubts to the changed 
appearance of His body, either as already glorified, or as in an inter- 
mediate condition, midway between the earthly and heavenly. 
Some, as Newcome, would translate it ‘‘had doubted,” and refer it 
to the earlier doubts of the apostles. ‘‘Some had doubted before; 
but all were now convinced.’’ Grammatical accuracy forbids this. 


TuHurspay, May 187TH, 783. A. D. 30. 


After the meeting upon the mountain in Galilee, the LUKE xxiy. 49. 
apostles return to Jerusalem. Upon the fortieth day Actsi. 1-3. 
after His resurrection, Jesus gathers the Eleven atthe ActTsi. 4-8. 
Mount of Olives, and, leading them toward Bethany, as- LUKE xxiy. 50, 51. 
cends to heaven. While they are gazing after Him, two Mark xyi. 19. 
men stand by them, and remind them that He is tore- Acts i. 9-12. 
turn. The apostles go back to Jerusalem, and there wait Luke xxiy. 52, 53. 
for the promised baptism of the Holy Spirit. After Pen- Mark xvi. 20. 
tecost they begin their labors. 


At what time the apostles returned to Jerusalem we are not 
‘told, but we may believe that it was only a very short time before 
the ascension. That Luke in his statement (Acts i. 3), that 
Jesus ‘showed Himself alive after His passion by many infalli- 
ble proofs, being seen of [the apostles] forty days, and speaking 
of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God,” includes more 
interviews than are specifically recorded by any of the Evangel- 
ists, cannot well be doubted; and that these interviews occurred 
in Galilee before the apostles went up to Jerusalem, not in Jeru- 
salem, is almost certain. In favor of Galilee it may be said, that 
here the apostles were at home and among friends, and that 
amidst the scenes of His former teachings His present words 
would come with double power and meaning; while in Jerusa- 
lem they would be among His enemies, and in a state of dis- 
quietude, if not of positive fear. We may, then, suppose that it 
was near the fortieth day ere they went up to Jerusalem. That 
they went in obedience to some special direction, is probable, 
and not simply to be present at the feast of Pentecost, which was 
more than ten days later; but that they knew for what end He 
had gathered them there, may be doubted. Indeed it is probable 
that so far from supposing that He was then about to depart from 


a . 


Part VIII] THE ASCENSION —ITS PLACE. 631 


them into heaven, they rather hoped and expected that He was 
about to reveal Himself in glory, and to commence His reign. That 
the mother of Jesus and the other women left Jerusalem and 
went to Galilee, and were with the five hundred, is almost cer- 
tain; and that they returned to Jerusalem with the apostles, 
appears from the mention of them as with the apostles in 
the upper chamber immediately after the ascension (Acts i. 
14). Probably they were accompanied on their return by His 
brethren. 


It is from the statements of Luke in his Gospel (xxiv. 50, 51), and 
in the Acts (i. 4-12), that we learn the details of the Lord’s departure 
into heaven. In the latter (verse 4) we read: ‘‘ And being assembled 
together with them, He commanded them that they should not depart 
from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith 
He, ye have heard of Me. For John truly baptized with water, but 
ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. 
When they therefore were come together, they asked of Him,” etc. 
Are two different assemblings here spoken of?! This seems most 
probable, tho two expressions ‘‘ being assembled together with them,” 
and, ‘‘ when they therefore were come together,” clearly pointing to 
two distinct and successive occasions.* But there need have been no 
long interval between them; they may have been on two successive 
days, or even one in the morning and the other in the afternoon of 
the same day. The place of their assembling was not improbably the 
upper room of the paschal supper. 

As Luke alone of the Evangelists mentions the place of the Ascen- 
sion, we must turn to his statements. He says in his Gospel (xxiv. 
50): ‘‘And He led them out as far as to Bethany ” — éws els BynOavlar ; 
in the Acts of the Apostles (1. 12): ‘‘ Then returned they unto Jerusa- 
lem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath 
day’s journey.” The topographical objection to the traditional site 
of the ascension is, that it is but about half a mile from the city wall; 
and if Jesus was separated from the disciples here, He did not lead 
them out as faras to Bethany. There is also another objection, in 
the fact of its publicity, being in full view from the city. But if we 
construe the statement, ‘‘ as far as to Bethany,” to mean the village 

of Bethany, we, on the other hand, make Luke inconsistent with him- 


1 As to the right rendering in verse 4, there is question. In the margin of our ver 
- sion, for “ being assembled” is put, ‘‘eating together with them™’; this is accepted by 
Meyer; in Vul. convescens. The R. V. retains ‘‘ being assembled.” 
2 So Olshausen; Hackett, Com, on Acts, in loco; Cook, and others; contra, Alford, 
and Gloag, Com. on Acts. 


632 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VILL 


self, since this is a mile below the summit of Olivet, and much more 
than a sabbath day’s journey. But the now generally accepted text 
of Luke in the Gospel does not say that ‘‘the Lord led them out as 
far as to Bethany,” but, ‘‘ He led them out till they were over against 
Bethany,” R. V. — pds Bnfavlav — Tisch., W. and H. It is remarked 
by Riddle (Har. 272) that ‘‘ this reading has relieved us of an appar- 
ent contradiction between Luke’s statements here and in Acts i. 12.” 
It is therefore unnecessary to repeat here the several solutions formerly 
given. It was near Bethany or in its vicinity that the Ascension took 
place. That the ‘‘ Mount of Olives” is a general designation embrac- 
ing the eastern as well as the western slopes, is apparent from various 
passages in the Evangelists. We have, then, to seek a site some- 
where upon the mount, in the neighborhood of Bethany, and distant 
about a sabbath day’s journey from Jerusalem.’ Such a site Barclay 
thinks he finds in a hill which overhangs Bethany, which lies about 
five hundred yards below. This hill is a mile from St. Stephen’s 
gate, and within a hundred yards of the direct footpath from Beth- 
any to Jerusalem. It is said by McGarvey (210): ‘‘ About half a mile 
southeast of the principal summit is a rounded knoll, nearly of the 
same height, connected to the mount by a narrow, depressed ledge, 
with a steep descent on the eastern side. Bethany lies immediately 
under this knoll on its eastern slope.”” However it may be with these 
particular spots, there is little doubt that from some one of the 
heights a little below the summit of Olivet, that look to the east and 
overhang the village of Bethany, He ascended to sit at the right hand 
of His Father. 

The supposed exact spot of the Ascension upon the Mount of Olives 
has been preserved by tradition, of which Robinson (ii. 253) speaks as 
‘* one of the very earliest traditions on record,” and ‘‘ which certainly 

existed in the third century long before the visit of Helena.” It is 
certain that Helena, mother of Constantine, erected a church upon 
the summit, and probably near the present site; though Stanley (448) 
claims that she did not mean to honor the scene of the Ascension 
itself, but a cave in which, according to Eusebius, Jesus initiated His 
disciples into His secret mysteries. ‘‘ There is, in fact, no proof from 
Eusebius that any tradition pointed out the scene of the Ascension.’ 


1 The mountain at its base and lower slopes, is within a few rods of the city. 
‘“ The mean distance,”’ says Barclay (59), ‘‘ of that portion of its summit opposite the city 
is about half a mile. But by the nearest pathway it is 918 yards from St. Stephen's gate 


to the Church of the Ascension; by the longer footpath, 1,310 yards; and by the main 


camel road, is perhaps a little farther.” 

2 For a history of the mount and a description of the present Church of the Ascen- 
sion, see Baed., 218, who says: ‘In the center of the chapel, which is octagonal in shape 
with & small dome, is the spot where Christ is said to have ascended. It belongs to the 


Part VIII] TRADITIONAL SITE OF THE ASCENSION. 633 


As to the rock within the present chapel, which has been pointed out 
to pilgrims since the seventh century as bearing the imprint of the 
Lord’s footsteps, Stanley says, ‘‘ There is nothing but a simple cav- 
ity in the rock, with no more resemblance to a human foot than to 
anything else.” 

The traditional site is defended by Williams (Holy City, ii. 240). 
The northern peak of the ridges began to be known in the 16th cen- 
tury as virt Galilaei, because it was said that ‘‘the two men in 
white” stood here and addressed the apostles: ‘‘ Ye men of Galilee, 
why stand ye gazing up into heaven” ? 

The ascension itself is mentioned only by Mark and Luke; how 
are we to account for the silence of Matthew and John? Not of course 
from ignorance, or because they disparaged its importance; but be- 
cause it was the natural sequence of the resurrection, and therefore 
needed no special mention. The Lord had often spoken of His 
departure to the Father, and explained to the apostles its necessity. 
Except He ascended into Heaven, He could not send upon them the 
Holy Ghost; and without His presence they could not do their work, 
nor the Church be gathered. His departure, therefore, was a step 
onward, and one essential to the accomplishment of the divine pur- 
pose in the establishment of the Messianic kingdom. Besides, as He 
had appeared to them for brief intervals during the forty days and 
again disappeared, His personal absence for a longer but an indefinite 
period did not seem to them as an event, like the resurrection, to be 
recorded, with all fullness of detail. We are also to remember that 
none then believed that His absence would be long, but looked upon 
his reappearing as possible at any hour. Thus placing ourselves in 
the position of the early Christians, we are not surprised that two of 
the Evangelists pass the ascension over without mention. It was the 
natural sequence of the resurrection, it had been foretold, they had 
become familiar during the forty days with His sudden appearings 
and disappearings, they looked to see Him speedily appear again; it 
might, therefore, be passed over, or if mentioned, only briefly. This 
brief mention is all that we find in the Gospels of Mark and Luke. 
It is only in the Acts of the Apostles that Luke enters more into de- 
tail, evidently regarding the ascension as the beginning of the Lord’s 
heavenly activity, and therefore, as having its right place as intro- 
ductory to the work of the apostles. The Gospels end with the end 
of the Lord’s work on the earth; any mention of the ascension was 
not demanded. 


Moslems, who also regard it as sacred, but Christians are permitted to celebrate mass in 
it on certain days.’ See aiso Smith’s Bib. Dict., Art., Mount of Olives. 


27* 


634 LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIIL 


But we have still to consider the manner in which Mark and Luke 
seem to connect the ascension with the resurrection, as if taking 
place the same day. And we will first examine the language of Mark 
(xvi. 14-20). Two points here meet us: a, the time of the appear- 
ance (verse 14); 6, the time when the words (verses 15-18) were 
spoken. 

a. That this appearance was on the evening of the day of the res- 
urrection, and the same as that mentioned by John (xx. 19), has been 
already shown. It is hardly credible that the Lord who on that 
evening showed himself to the Eleven, would at any later period have 
upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart in not be- 
lieving those who had seen him. 

b. Were the words (vs. 15-18)—the command to go into all the 
world and preach the gospel, and the promise of the signs to follow 
— spoken at this supper or later ? 

From the connection in which His words stand, it would seem 
that they were spoken to the Eleven as they sat at meat on the even- 
ing of the day of the resurrection, and that immediately after He 
ascended into heaven. This, however, is wholly irreconcilable with 
the statements of Luke in the Acts; and it is also intrinsically im- 
probable that upon the occasion of His first meeting with the apostles 
after He had risen, and while their minds were in so great excite- 
ment, He should give them this commission. 

It is affirmed by some, as Meyer and Alford, that Mark, intending 
to relate what took place at one and the same time, brings together 
here by mistake what really took place on several distinct occasions. 
He supposed that the Lord spake these words to the Eleven on the 
evening of the day He rose, and the same evening ascended to heaven. 
But the same rule of interpretation seems also to show that He was 
received up from the room in which they were eating, and that the 
Eleven, going immediately forth from this room, began at once to 
preach the Gospel. Of course, if this were so, the writer, whether 
Mark or some one else, could have known nothing of the several ap- 
pearances of Jesus during the forty days, of the ascension from 
Bethany, or of the ten days’ waiting for the Spirit ere the disciples 
began to preach. The supposition of such ignorance on his part 
itself presents a greater difficulty than that it is intended to remove. 

We give some of the solutions that have been proposed: 

1st. That which takes Mark’s narrative as strictly chronological. 
The Lord’s words were spoken to the Eleven on the evening of the 
day of the resurrection, and His ascension immediately followed. 
This is affirmed by those who, as Kinkel and Jones, maintain that He 


son § 


oo —_ —- 


Part VIII.] LAST WORDS OF THE LORD. 635 


repeatedly ascended to heaven; and, indeed, that He departed thither 
after each appearance to His disciples. The ascension on fhe forti- 
eth day (Acts i. 9) was the last, and as such was visible, and marked 
with especial solemnity.’ This view of several ascensions may remove 
some difficulties, but involves others greater, both historical and dog- 
matic. 

2d. That which makes Jesus to have spoken these words to the 
Eleven on the evening of the day of the resurrection, but defers the 
Ascension itself to the fortieth day following. In this case the 
phrase, pera 7d AadFom, ‘‘ After the Lord had spoken to them” (verse 
19), is not to be confined to the few words just recorded, but embraces 
His discourses in general, down to the time He ascended. 

3d. That which places His interview with the Eleven on the 
evening of the day of the resurrection (verse 14), but the words fol- 
lowing upon some subsequent occasion, perhaps upon the mount in 
Galilee; and the ascension at a still later period. 

4th. That which makes this interview with the Eleven to have 
been after the return of Jesus and the disciples from Galilee to Jeru- 
salem, and immediately before the ascension at Bethany. (See Acts, 
1. 4.) 

The obvious and natural interpretation of Mark’s narrative is this: 
The Evangelist, wishing to give in the briefest way the substance of 
the Lord’s missionary commission to the Church, with its accompany- 
ing promises, connects it with a meeting of the eleven apostles, which, 
for reasons already given, was probably on the evening of the day of 
the resurrection. All the instructions of the forty days upon this 
point are summed up in these few words. In the same concise way 
it is said, that after the Lord had spoken to them, or after He had 
finished His instructions, He was received up. To press this brevity 
as indicating ignorance on his part of the real order of events, is 
hypercritical. 

Substantially the same difficulties meet us in the narrative of Luke 
as in that of Mark. In his Gospel (xxiv. 33-51), he seems to repre- 
sent the ascension as taking place the evening after Jesus rose from 
the dead. The Lord meets the Eleven and others as they were gath- 
ered together, and after convincing them that He was really risen by 
eating before them and discoursing to them, He leads them out to 
Bethany, and blessing them, is carried up into heaven. 

We have already seen that this appearance of the Lord in Luke 
when He ate before them, is the same as the appearance in John (xx. 


1 See Kinkel, Studien u. Krit., 1841, translated in Bib. Sacra, Feb., 1844. Jones, 
(Notes, 480): ‘‘ He was, during the forty days, ordinarily an inhabitant of the heaveniy 
world.” See contra, Robinson, in Bib. Sacra, May, 1845, 


636 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VIIL 


19.) It was on the evening of the day of the resurrection that the 
two returned from Emmaus and found the Eleven gathered together, 
and then the Lord appeared to them. 

Our second inquiry is as to the time when the words (verses 
44-48) were spoken. This is not certain. Some, regarding them as 
spoken at one time, would put them in immediate connection with 
what precedes; others refer them to a later period — to the second 
interview with the Eleven after eight days, or to the meeting upon 
the mount in Galilee, or to the day of the ascension; others affirm 
that the Evangelist gives here a summary of Jesus’ teachings during 
the forty days; giving especial prominence to His teaching respecting 
the fulfillment of prophecy in His death, and in its further fulfill- 
ment through the preaching of the Gospel to all nations. Whether 
the opening their understanding to understand the scriptures refers 
to some special act (John xx. 22), or to a gradual process of spiritual 
illumination, is in question. 

We have seen that Luke in his statements in the Gospel and in 
the Acts is consistent as to the place of the ascension, is he censistent 
also as to the time? Before comparing them as to this point, we 
must examine the text of the Gospel. Tischendorf, in verse 51, omits 
‘‘and was carried into heaven,” and in verse 52: “‘and they worshipped 
Him.” (They are bracketed by W. and H., but retained in the R. Y.) 
If omitted, we read: ‘‘ And it came to pass, while He blessed them, 
He was parted from them, and they returned to Jerusalem with 
great joy.” This very brief mention here is wholly in keeping with 
Luke’s intention to speak more fully in his later treatise. 

The question now arises whether this Evangelist in the Acts of 
the Apustles contradicts anything he has said in his Gospel. This is 
affirmed by Meyer. According to him, there were two traditions, one 
of which represented the Lord as ascending upon the day of the resur- 
rection; the other, after forty days. In his Gospel, Luke follows the 
former; in the Acts, the latter. With Meyer, Alford agrees. ‘* Luke, 
at the time of writing his Gospel, was not aware of any Galilean ap- 
pearances of the Lord, nor indeed of any later than this one. That 
he corrects this in Acts i., shows him to have become acquainted with 
some other sources of information, not however, perhaps, including 
the Galilean appearances.” All this is arbitrary conjecture. There 
is not the slightest hint that the Evangelist wished to correct in the 
later account an error in the earlier. Had he made so gross a mistake, 
common honesty toward his readers would have demanded an explicit 
statement of it, and a retraction; for how otherwise could Theophilus 
or any of his readers, know which account to believe? On the con- 
trary, he says that his former treatise embraced all that Jesus did and 


Part VIII.] SUMMARY OF APPEARANCES. 63? 


taught ‘‘ until the day in which He was taken up,” ‘‘ being seen of 
the apostles forty days.” This is a plain averment that in his Gospel 
he placed the ascension on the fortieth day, although he did not 
there give any specific designation of time.' 

Those who, like Jones, make the Lord to have often ascended, 
refer these accounts of Luke to different events. In the Gospel, he 
speaks of the ascension on the evening following the resurrection; 
in Acts, of the last ascension. And a3 the time, so the place was 
different ; the former ascension being from Bethany, the latter from 
the summit of the Mount of Olives.” But Luke’s language in his 
Gospel, plainly shows that he cannot speak of an ascension upon 
the evening of the day when Jesus arose. The day was far spent 
when He was with the two disciples at Emmaus, and they had still 
to return to Jerusalem, and probably were some time with the Eleven, 
ere He joined them. Hours may have passed in convincing them of 
His actual resurrection, and in discoursing to them. It must, there- 
fore, have been late in the evening ere He led them out to Bethany, 
and the ascension itself must have been in the dead of night. This 
is intrinsically improbable, not to say incredible. It may have been 
at sunset or in the early evening. 


We may now sum up the general results of our investigations. 

The forty days, or five weeks and five days, beginning Kaster 
Sunday, April 9th, and ending Thursday, May 18th, may be 
divided into three periods. Ist. That in Judea from Easter 
Sunday to the departure into Galilee. 2d. That in Galilee. 3d. 
That after the return to Jerusalem to the ascension. 

During the first period, from Easter Sunday till the Sunday 
following inclusive, there were six appearances, five on Haster 
Sunday: (a) to Mary Magdalene; (2) to the other women; (c) to 
the two at Emmaus; (d@) to Peter; (e) to the Eleven; on the next 
Sunday (f) to the Eleven. That the Lord may have appeared 
to His mother on Easter day or during the week, is probable, 
but not recorded. 

During the second period, after the arrival in Galilee, there 
were two, probably three, recorded appearances: (a) to the seven 
at the Sea of Tiberias; (+) to the five hundred, the Eleven being 
present; (c) to James. 

1 See Ebrard. 596. 
2 In this way Jones (515) explains the statement of Barnabas, that the Lord as. 
eended on the eighth day. The final ascension was on the 5th day of the week, or Thurs- 


day, that to which Barnabas refers was on the 8th or first day of the week, and the very 
day on which he arose. See Hefele, Patrnm Apostolicorum Opera. 42; Nebe, 381. 


638 THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. [Part VITL 


During the third period, after the return to Jerusalem to the 
ascension — some two days— there were two appearances: (a) 
to the apostles first assembling somewhere in the city; ‘(b) to 
them in the city to lead them out to Bethany. 

The length of each of these periods can only approximately 
be given. 1. In Jerusalem, and including time of journey to 
Gahlee, twelve days. 2. In Galilee, twenty-three days. 3. 
Journey from Galilee to Jerusalem and in the city, five days. 
In regard to those utterances of the Lord during the forty days 
the time and place of which are in dispute, we give a brief 
classification of opinions. 

1 (Matt. xxviil. 18-20). (a) In Galilee to the Eleven alone; 
(2) to the Eleven and five hundred; (c) in Jerusalem before or 
at His ascension ; (d) a summary of all the Galilwan teachings. 

2 (Mark xvi. 15-18). (a) In Jerusalem on the evening of 
Easter day; (2) on evening of second Sunday; (c) just before or 
at His ascension; (¢) spoken at same time with Matt. xxviii. 
18-20. 

3 (Luke xxiv. 44-48). 1. All spoken at one time. (a) On 
evening of Easter day; (}) in Jerusalem after return from Gali- 
lee. 2. Spoken at different times. (a) Some parts on day of 
the ascension; (4) other parts earlier during the forty days; (c) 
a summary of all His teachings to His ascension; (d) some parts 
spoken on day of ascension, other parts earlier during the forty 
days. That the command (verse 49) to tarry in the city of 
Jerusalem was spoken after they had returned thither from Gali- 
lee, and is identical with the command Acts i. 4, needs no proof. 

Thus comparing the several Evangelists, we find that the 
Lord during the forty days first manifested Himself to His dis- 
ciples in Judwa, and going thence to Galilee, returned again to 
Judea to ascend to God. So far as we can learn, it was not His 
purpose to have shown Himself to them in Jerusalem, for He 
had commanded them to go into Galilee, and there they should 
see Him. But their unbelief in His words respecting His resur- 
rection, made it necessary that He should manifest Himself to 
them there; yet even after they had seen Him, the unbelief of 
one seems to have detained them some days in Jerusalem. As 
in Galilee He had gathered His disciples, so here He appoints a 


OS ees, eee eee 


Part VIII.] THE LORD’s RETURN IN GLORY. 639 


place of general meeting. But He cannot ascend to His Father 
from Galilee. As He went up to Jerusalem to die, He now goes 
up thither again, that from the Mount of Olives overlooking the 
Holy City and the temple, He may ascend to His Father’s right 
hand to receive the kingdom; to enter on His work of interces- 
sion; to send the Holy Ghost for the gathering and forming of 
His church; and to await the hour when His feet shall stand 
again upon the Mount, and His enemies shall be made His foot- 
stool, and the rejected and crucified One shall be King over all 
the earth. 


“We men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into beaven? 
Tbis same Jesus which is taken up from you into beaven, sball 
$0 come in like manner as pe bave seen im go into beaven,” 





APPENDIX. 


Il. Tre Mrractes oF THE GosPELs. 
PREPARED BY MR. E. E. NOURSE. 


In the Gospels there are, if I mistake not, fifty-seven distinct 
miraculous occurrences noted. 

The above enumeration does. not include such events as have 
a more or less supernatural character, but which cannot be classed as 
miraculous. I mean such events as Mary’s psalm of praise, the 
words of Zacharias at the baptism of John, the utterances of Simeon 
and Anna— all of which were inspired in a greater or less degree by 
the Holy Spirit. The mission of the wise men, the warnings given 
to Joseph in a dream, the temptation of Christ, the impulse of John 
the Baptist to preach, his knowledge of Christ —all these are more or 
less extraordinary and supernatural in character, but are not to be 
called miraculous. 

Of the fifty-seven events of the Gospel history which we have 
called miraculous, five are events connected with the Saviour’s birth 
and infancy. They are: 

1. Angel appears to Zacharias. Luke i. 

2. Angel appears to Mary. Luke i. 

3. Loosening of Zacharias’ tongue, etc. Luke i. 

4, Angel appears to Joseph. Matt. i. 

5. Angel appears to shepherds. Luke ii. 

Of the remaining fifty-two, there are two which were performed 
without any direct volition of the Saviour, that is by God Himself 
They are: 

1. The baptism of Christ by the Holy Spirit at the Jordan. Mait. 
iii. 16.-- : 

2. The miracles at the crucifixion —rending of the vail of the 
temple, opening of graves, etc. Matt. xxvii., xxviii. 

The fifty we now have left, are capable of still further subdivision. 
Twelve of these fifty were events which were miraculous in their 
nature, actings of the Father upon the Son, or appearances of the 
Son or of angels after His resurrection, but were not wrought, like 
healings, upon others. They are: 

(641) 


642 APPENDIX. 


. The transfiguration of Christ. Matt. xvii. 

. The resurrection of Christ. Matt, xxviii. 

. The angels at the sepulchre. Matt. xxviii. 

. Jesus appears to the women. Matt. xxviii. 

. Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene. Mark xvi. 

. Jesus appears to Peter. Luke xxiv. 

. Jesus appears to two disciples. Luke xxiv. 

. Jesus appears to ten disciples (Thomas being absent). John xx. 

. Jesus appears to eleven disciples. John xx. 
10. Jesus appears on mountain in Galilee. Matt. xxviii. 
11. Jesus appears to seven disciples in Galilee. John xxi. 
12. Ascension. Mark xvi. 

We have left now thirty-eight events which may be called miracles 
of Our Lord. About two of them there may be more or less dispute, 
viz.: (1) The falling backward of the band of men who came to ar- 
rest Jesus in the garden (John xviii. 4); and (2) the fire of coals, etc., 
noticed by the disciples on the shore of the sea of Galilee, when Jesus 
appears to seven of them at that place. See John xxi. As to the re- 
maining thirty-six we think there is no dispute. They may be found 
classified in the helps in the Teachers’ Bible. 

‘The following occurred at Capernaum: 

. Healing of demoniac. Mark i. 

. Healing of Peter’s mother-in-law and many others. Matt. viii. 
. Healing of paralytic. Matt. ix. 

. Healing of centurion’s servant. Matt. viii. 

. Raising of Jairus’ daughter. Matt. ix. 

. Healing of two blind men. Matt. ix. 

. Healing of the dumb spirit. Matt. ix. 

. Stater in the fish’s mouth. Matt. xvii. 

. Healing of woman with bloody issue. Matt. ix. 
In Galilee (place not certain) occurred 

1. Healing of a leper. Matt. viii. 

2. Healing of withered hand. Matt. xii. 

3. Healing of demoniac. Matt. xii. 

On, or inthe immediate vicinity of, the sea of Galilee, occurred 
1. Miraculous draught of fishes. Luke v. 

2. Stilling of tempest. Matt. viii. 

3. Feeding of five thousand. Matt. xiv. 

4. Walking on water. Matt. xiv. 

5. Draught of fishes. John xxi. 

In Jerusalem, or near it, occurred 

1. Healing of man at pool of Bethesda. John v. 
2. Healing of a blind man. John ix. and x. 


Ot D or - Ww DW 


© 


OOH naDaAa Kr WWD re 


APPENDIX. 643 


3. Withering of fig tree. Matt. xxi. 

4, Healing of Malchus’ ear (Gethsemane), Luke xxii. 

In the Decapolis occurred 

1. Healing of deaf and dumb (and many). Mark vii. 

2. Feeding of four thousand. Matt. xv. 

The following places witnessed the performance of one miracle 
each: 

1. Cana (see below) — Water into wine. John ii. 

2. Nain— Son of widow raised. Luke vii. 

3. Gadara — Legion of devils cast out. Matt. viii. 

4. Region of Tyre and Sidon— Daughter of woman healed. 
Matt. xv. 

5. Bethsaida Julias— Blind man. Mark viii. 

6. Samaria —Ten lepers. Luke xvii. 

7. Bethany — Raising of Lazarus. John xi. 

8. Jericho—Two blind men. Matt. xx. 

9. Nazareth — Miraculous escape of Jesus. Luke iv. 

10. Caesarea Philippi — Healing of demoniac. Matt. xvii. 

“un the Persean region probably occurred 

1. Healing of aninfirm woman. Luke xiii. 

2. Healing of man with dropsy. Luke xiv. 

Cana and Capernaum have each an almost equal right to claim the 
miracle of the healing of the nobleman’s son. The word was spoken 
at Cana, the cure took place at Capernaum. John iv. 

If we give this to Capernaum it can claim ten miracles. 

If I mistake not, six of our Lord’s miracles were performed on a 
Sabbath. They are 

1. Healing of demoniac (Mark i.) in a synagogue. 

. Healing of man in Jerusalem at Bethesda. John v. 

. Healing of withered hand, Galilee (Matt. xii.), in a synagogue. 
. Healing of blind man in Jerusalem (John ix.) near the temple. 

. Healing of an infirm woman, Perea (Luke xiii.), in asynagogue. 
. Healing of a man with dropsy, Perea (Luke xiv.), in house 
of a Pharisee. 

There were apparently only three miracles performed in a syna- 


gogue. 


To the above we subjoin the following note on the Galilean mira- 
cles; prepared by Prof. Barbour. 

The fourteen recorded miracles of the southern Galilean ministry 
(period from John’s imprisonment to his death) would seem, from the 
way in which they fall naturally into pairs, to be carefully selected 
samples from a much larger number. The twelve given by St. Luke 
(chs. iv.—viii.) thus group themselves. 


aS oe © 0 


644 APPENDIX. 


(a) Two wrought on nature: Fishes (animate), Tempest (inanis 
mate). 

(b) Ten wrought on man, as follows: 

1. Two demoniacs: unclean spirit, legion. 

2. Two (chronic) impurity: general, leprosy; local, issue. 

8. Two (chronic) helplessness: general, palsy ; local, withered hand. 

4. Two (acute) severe cases: great fever, point of death (inflam- 
matory rheumatism). 

5. Two dead: girl just dead; the widow’s son about to be buried. 

To which add the pair given by Matthew — two cases of organic 
defect: blind, dumb. 


Il. ABRIDGED GENEALOGY OF THE HERODIAN FAMILY. 
PREPARED BY PROF. BARBOUR. 


HEROD THE GREAT (Matt. ii.) 
(a) (%) (c) (a) 


LE ee 


PHILIP  Aristobulus Philip HEROD Antipas ARCHELALS 
(Luke iii) (Matt. xiv) \ / (Luke iii, ete.) (Matt. 
 S 
HEROD D ABOBES I. Herodias 
(Acts xii (Matt. xiv) 
AGRIPPA II. Salome 
(Acts xxv) (Matt. xiv) 


(a) Cleopatra. 
Four of the wives of Herod } (5) Mariamne, granddau. of Hyrcanus. 
the Great (c) Mariamne., dau. of Simon. 
(d) Malthace. 


Rulers in CAPITALS. 


III. The book, ‘‘ Gospel Difficulties, or the Displaced Section of 
St. Luke,” by J. J. Halcombe, London, 1886, has not been referred to 
because it seems incredible that such a displacement could have taken 
place, and yet no hint of it be found in any ancient manuscript or 
author. But in many respects the book is worthy of an examination. 


GENERAL INDEX. 


Abia, cues of, Be 14, 


Aceldama, 525. 
aoe Tonk before Jesus, 345, 


#Enon, site of, 173-175. 

Alphens, 114, 115. 

Andrew visits Jesus, 158-160. 

a, appearance of, at sepulchre, 599, 


Annas, office of, 142-144; 
fore, 505-510. 

Annunciation to Zacharias, 53; to Mary, 
55-57 


Jesus taken be- 


Anointing of Jesus, by a woman a sinner, 
-286; by Mary, 422. 

Antonia, tower of, 530. 

Apostles, early relations of, to Jesus, 245, 
246; choice of, 265, 263; sending of, 307- 
313 ; return of, to Jesus, 321; disputes 
among, 361, 362; strife among, “at paschal 
supper, 481, 483. 

Appearances of Jesus after the resurrec- 
tion, different arrangements of, 596-610. 

Archelaus, 142, 143. 

Ascension, place and time of, 630-637. 

Augustus, emperor, census under, 2, 3; 
closes the temple of Janus, 11, 12; tax: 


ing by, 71 


Barabbas, 535. 536. 

Bethabara, site of, 146-151; Jesus returns 
thither, 401. 

Bethany visited by Jesus, 397; site of, 406, 
407; Jesus lodges at, 422; feast at, 422; 
Jesus ascends from, 630-633. 

Bethesda, pool of, 198-201. 

Bethlehem, position of, 82; cave of, 83-87. 

Bethphage, site of, 429-432. 

Bethsaida, site of, 230-223; the feeding of 
5,000 there, 320-322. 

Blasphemy, Jesus charged with, 505-514. 

Blood and water, flowing of, 566-569. 

Brethren, the Lord’s, 111-123; did not be- 
lieve on Him, 341-343. 


Czesarea Philippi, visited by Jesus, 351. 
Caiaphas, hig: 
ae of, 505-510; Jesus examined by, 


Cana of Galilee, wedding at, 160; site of, 
162-164. 


Capernaum, why selected by Jesus, 239; 
site of, 221-239. 

Chorazin, site of, 237, 238. 

Christmas, when first observed, 17-19. 

Chronology, patristic, 41, 48-50. 

Circuits in Galilee, arrangement of, 243, 
244; duration of, 240. 

Cleopas, 614. 

Cock-crowing, 520, 521. 





Corn, plucking ears of, 255, 259. 

Crucifixion, time of, 544-548; place of, 544, 
576-586: mode of, 550-552. 

Cyrenius, governor “of Syria, when, 4; tax- 
ing under, 77-79. 


Dalmanutha, site of, 338. 

Daniel, week of, 41, 42. 

Darkness at the crucifixion, 557, 558. 
David, decay of his family, 66. 

Decapolis visited by Jesus, 332-335. 
Dedication, feast of, 397, 398. 

Divisions of our Lord’s Ministry, 125-187. 
Dream, Pilate’s wife’s, 536. 


Earthquake at crucifixion, 561; at resur- 
rection, 575. 

Egypt, Jesus in, 98-100. 

Elias, forerunner of Messiah, 359, 360. 

Emmans, site of, 617-619. 

Ephraim, site of, 409, 410; Jesus sojourns 
at, 410, 411. 

Epiphany, feast of, 30-32; when kept, 89. 

Eras, Roman and Christian, 1. 


Gadara. See Gergesa. 

Galilee, 213; sea of, 221, 222; shores fitted 
for teaching, 253; storms on, 294, 326-328; 
Jesus meets the seven disciples there, 625; 
mount of, 629. 

Genealogies of Jesus, 58-65. 

Gennesaret, position of, 222-239. 

Gerasa. See Gergesa. 

Gergesa, site of, “296-300 ; demoniacs of, 
300-302. 

Gethsemane, garden of, 497-500; the Lord’s 
agony in, 501, 502. 

Golgotha, 575-588. 

Greeks’ desire to see Jesus, 443, 444. 


Harvest, time of, 182, 183 


| Herod the Great, time of his death, 1: 


character of, 101. 


| Herod Antipas, 142, 143; hears of Jesus, 


priest, 137-142; council at | 


313: imprisons John, 314 ; celebrates 
birthday, 315; threatens to kill Jesus, 
395: Jesus sent to by Pilate, 533, 534. 
Herodians, who, 261 
Herodias, 314. 


Innocents, murder of, 11, 100, 101. 


Jacob, well of, 184, 185. 

James the Apostle, 159, 248. 

James, son of Alpheus, 111-117. 

Jericho, visited by Jesus, 416. 

Jews, term as used by John, 469, 470. 

John the Apostle, first visit of, to Jesus, 
154, 158; call of, 245-247; ambition of, 
414-416; at paschal supper, 481, 487, 488: 


(645) 


646 GENERAL INDEX. 


at the ei 555-557; at the sepulchre, 
596, 608, 6 

John the Beptiet, time of birth, 13; time of 
beginning his ministry, 22, 23; age of, 
when he began to preach, 29. 30; birth: 
place, 54, 55; place of baptizing, 146- 
151; testimony to Jesus, 154- 157: bap- 
tizes at Enon, 173-175; relations of his 
baptism to that of Christ, 176, 177; im- 
prisonment of, 215-217; message to Je- 
sus, 276, 279, 280; death of, 307, 313. 

Jordan, floods in, 33, 34. 

Joseph, his lineage, 55, 56; prior marriage 
of, 112, 118. 

Joseph of Arimathea, receives the Lord’s 
body, 563, 570, 571. 

Juda, city of, 54, 55. 

Jadas offended at Christ’s words, 422, 427: 
bargaining with the priests,447; at paschal 
supper, 481-488; whether present at the 
Lord’s supper, 491-493: leads the soldiers 
to arrest Jesus, 503, 504; returns the 
Say pieces of silver, 524, 526; his death, 

, 927; his motives, 528. 
Jude ea, the Lord’s work in, 167-169. 


Kidron, 497. 

Lazarus, death of, 404, 405; sepulchre of, 
Teo frail of, 252-255; feast of, 255, 302- 
Tina supper, institution of, 482, 488- 
Teens tetrarch of Abilene, 137-140. 


Macheerus, 315. 
Magdala, 337, 338. 
Magi, star of, 9-11, 89, 90; country of, 93- 


Malstactors, two crucified with Jesus, 
554; one repents, 556; death of, 564. 

Martha, sister of Lazarus, 397, 398; serves 
at the table, 426. 

Mary Magdalene, her character, 285, 286; 
visits the sepulchre, 596-612; ‘Jesus ap- 
pears first to, 603-604. 

Mary, mother ‘of_ Jesus, parentage of, 56; 
of the house of David, 58-65; is visited by 
Gabriel, 55; visits Elizabeth, 68, 69; at 
the Passover, 108-110; at Cana, 160- 
162; supposed residence at Capernaum, 
239, 240; visits her son with His brethren, 
286-290; is commended to the care of 
John, 555, 557. 

Mary, wifeof Alphzeus, who, 113,114; sons 
of, 112-118. 

Mary, sister of Lazarus, is commended by 
Jesus, 397; anoints the Lord, 422. 

Matthew. See Levi. 

Ministry, the Lord's divisions of, 125-137; 
in Judva, 167-207; in Galilee, 209-363; 
general features of, in Galilee, 134, 135, 
209-212; later work in Galilee, 317- 


363. 

Miracles, of healing: — Healing of noble- 
man’s son, 178; of impotent man, 189; 
of the possessed in the synagogue, 245; 
of Simon’s wife’s mother, 245; of the 
leper, 250; of the paralytic, 252; of the 
man with a withered hand. 255; of the 
centurion’s servant, 274; of blind and 
dumb possessed, 286; of the Gergesene 
demoniacs. 295; of woman with issue of 
blood, 302; of two blind men, 306; ef a 











dumb person 306; of 
daughter of a Phenician woman, 332; of 
man with animpediment in speech, 382; 
of blind man at 1 

child, 359; of man ie from birth, 346; 
of dumb possessed, 390: of sick woman 
in the synagogue, 393; of a man with 
dropsy, 402; of the ten lepers, 410; of 
the blind men at Jericho, 416; of Mal- 
chus’ ear, 503. 

——. other kinds of :— Changing water 
into wine, 160; escapes the wrath of the 
Nazarenes, 215: first draught of fishes, 
245; ae of the widow's son, 276; 
stilling of the tempest, 291; raising of 
daughter of Jairus, 302; feeding of the 
5,000, 320; walking on the sea, 321; 
feeding of the 4,000, 3832; money in ‘tsh’s 
mouth, 361; raising of Lazarus, 
w ithering of fig tree, 436; sooner 
of fishes, , 625. 

in general: — Wronght at Jerusa- 

lem, at Passover, 169; at Capernanm, 
252; by the seashore, 265; before the 
Sermon on the Mount, 270; ‘in the neigh- 
borhood of Nazareth, ‘309; in the land of 
Gennesaret, 329: on east side of sea of 
Galilee, 332; in the temple, 436. 

——-— of the apostles, 312. 

—— of the Seventy, 385. 


Nain, site of, 277. 

Nathaniel, 160. 

Nativity, cave of, 83-86. 

——o name of” 104, 105; position of, 
05-107 

Nicodemus visits Jesus, 169-171; defends 
Jesus, 345; embalms His body, 571. 


Olives, Mount of, 429; path over from 
Bethany, 430; discourse upon, 445, 446; 
distance from Jerusalem, 609, n.; ascen- 
sion from, : 


Palestine, seasons of, 14-17; climate of, 
32-34. 


Parables, those spoken by the sea-side, 
291-294; beginning of teaching in, 203; 
of the unmmerciful servant, : of the 

‘ood fe tee #000 A of the rich a 
; of fig tree, of great supper, 
of lost sheep, lost piece of silver, prodi: 
gal son, unrighteous steward, of the rich 
man and Lazarus, -_ of anjest jud, 
of Pharisee and publican, 410; of t 
ounds, 416; of the twosons, the wicked 
usbandmen, the king’s son, 488; of the 
foolish virgins, the talents, 449. 

Paschal supper, whether eaten by Jesus, 
452-457; order of, 457-460. 

Passovers, number "of, in Jesus’ ministry, 
35, 50, 51; Jesus’ ‘first attendance at, 
108, first of in His ministry, 169; ques- 
tion of, second, 189-198; nearness of, at 
feeding the 5,000, 331; numbers present 
at, 412, 413; last of Jesus’ ministry, 450; 
preparation for, 451, 452. 

Perea, Jesus’ last Journey through, 365; 

visited by the Seventy, 

Peter, Simon, first meets Jesus, 154, 159; 
house of, 239, 245; call of, 245-248 
yreference shown to, with James and 

ohn, 306; attempt to walk oo gpa water 
321, 328; first confession of, 3882 
confession of, 351-835; denials foretold, 


GENERAL INDEX. 


494-496; thrice denies the Lord, 493, 505, 
516-521; visits the sepulchre with John, 
596, 611, 612; sees the Lord in Jerusalem, 
620; at the lake of Tiberias, 625. 

Pharisees, deputation of, to John, 154-156; 
demand asi of Jesus, 170; hinder 
baptism by aeRS: 188; hostility’ to Jesus, 
255, 261, 262; blasphemy of, 287 : 
demand a sign, 339, 340; send oflicers 
to arrest Jesus, 341, 344, 345; demand 
His authority, 438, 439; attempt to en- 
trap Him, 438, 440: hypocrisy of, re- 
buked, 438, 442, 

Pilate, Pontius, administration of, 143; 
Jesus brought before him, 528-544; at- 
tempts to release Jesus, 534-541; acts of, 
543 


Prisoner, release of, at Passover, 534-536. 

Pretorium, site of, 530, 531 

Punishment, capital, power to inflict, when 
taken from the Jews, 40, 41. 

Purim, feast of, 192-196 


Resurrection of saints at the crucifixion, 
555, £1, 562; of Jesus, hour of, 601. 


Sabbath, second-first, 255-259; strictly 
kept by the Jews, 260; feasts upon, 425. 
Sabbaths, certain feast ‘days so regarded, 

5D. 


Sabbatic year, John’s ministry in, 145. 

Sadducees, unite with Pharisees against 
Jesus, 339, 340. 

Salome, mother of James and John, 416. 

Samaritans, receive Jesus, 178, 186; reject 
Him, 385, 386. 

Sanhedrin, Jesus before, 202, 203; sends 
officers ‘to arrest Him, 341, 344, 845; 
takes counsel] to put Him to ‘death, 404, 
407-409; powers of, 510, 511; second 
session. ‘of, 521-524. 

Saturninus, governor of Syria, 3. 

Scpe ae Jesus, 529, 538-540. 

Scribes. eputation of, from Jerusalem, 
290; second deputation, 332, 333. 

Sepulchre, the Lord’s, site ‘of, ‘575-588; 
sealing of, 573, 574. 





647 


Sermon on the Mount, 248, 265, 269-2'74. 

Seventy, the, sending of, and when and 
where sent, 380-385. 

Shepherds at Bethlehem, 14-16, 87-89. 

Sidon. See Tyre. 

Siloam, pool of, 348. 

Simon of Cyrene, 548, 549. 

Soldiers, Roman, aid to arrest Jesus, 501; 
bribery of, 612, 613. 
Son of God, ‘term how used, 515, 516. 

Star of the Fast, 6-10, 93, 95, 96. 

Sun, darkening ‘of, 40, 55D, 557-559. 

Sweat, bloody, 497, 502. 


Tabernacles, feast of, 197; attended by 
Jesus, 341- 345; order of events at, 346, 
347. 

Taxing, the, when made, 2-4. 

Temple, rebuilt by Herod, 56; first purifi- 
cation of, 169, 170; fax of, 361-363 ; 
second purification of, 409, 436, 437; veil 
of, 555, 561. 

Temptation, place of, 155. 

Thomas, unbelief of, 623-625. 

pibenus, colleagueship with Augustus, 26- 


Transfiguration of Christ, 351-359. 

Trial of Jesus, of what "accused, 510-516: 
not impartial, 512, 513. 

Tyre, 332-335. 


Unnamed Feast, 189-198. 


Varus, governor of Syria, 3, 4. 
Via Dolorosa, 549, 550. 


Washing of disciples’ feet by Jesus, 481- 
484; of Pilate’s hands, 529, 541. 

Women of Galilee attending Jesus, 281; 
visit to sepulchre of, 596-614. 


Zaccheus, 416, 420. 
Za cas, not high priest, 53; home of, 


Zacharias, son of Barachias, 442, 443. 


CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX, 





Annunciation to Zacharias, . : Oc 

Elizabeth conceives a son, and lives in retirement, : + Oct.-March, 
Annunciation to Mary, . ° . April, 
Mary visits Elizabeth and remains three months, Z ‘ April-June, 
Birth of John the Baptist, . - « dmg; 
Joseph and Mary go to Bethiehem to be taxed, . Ss : . Decy 
Jesus born at Bethlehem, . : - : - . “Beer 
The angel and the shepherds, : - a a : : o  Wesy 
Circumcision of Jesus, . ° = ° ‘ F . ° Jan., 
Presentation of Jesus, 5 < z Z = 2 ° 5 < Diy 
Coming of the Magi, _. SO Gicate,” (et Ue. ot rn 
Flight of Jesus into Beyet, owe! te. te en 
Return to Nazareth, an sojourn there, 5 s May, 
Jesus, at twelve years of age, attends the Passover, 2 . . April, 
John the Baptist begins his labors, . ° < a Summer, 
Baptism of Jesus, . 5 5 a . - , : 
Jesus tempted in the w ilderness, : . Jan.-Feb., 
Deputation of Priests and Levi ites to the Baptist, . . : we 
Jesus returns to Galilee, ° Z 4 ‘ Feb., 
Wedding at Cana of Galilee, -  Beb., 
First Passover of Jesus’ ministry; cleansing of temple, : - April, 
Jesus begins to baptize, : : May, 


Jesus departs into Galilee, through Samaria, ; - : «| ADRES 
Healing nobleman’s son at Capernaum, 


A few weeks spent by Hest in reeaan SMR 2 Jan.—April, 


Second visit at Cana, . 5 - el < 5 ~ 

The Baptist imprisoned, : : ° . March, 
Unnamed Feast; healing of impotent man, 5 ° Pee ril, 
Jesus begins His ministry in Galilee, = . April-May, 


First visit to Nazareth; makes abode in Capernaum, 4 
Calling of the four disciples, and healings at Capernaum, April-May, 


First circuit in Galilee: healing of the leper, " May, 
Return = Capernaum, and healing of the paralytic; calling of 

Ley Summer, 
Plucking the corn, and healing the man with withered hand, Summer, 
Choice of apostles, and Sermon on the Mount, . 5 Summer, 
Healing of centurion’s servant at Capernaum, . : ° Summer, 
Journey to Nain, and raising of the widow’s se - 5 Summer, 
Message to Jesus of the Baptist, 3 3 : . Summer, 
Jesus anointed by the woman; a sinner, Autumn, 


Healing at Capernaum of the blind and dumb possessed; ‘charge 

of the Pharisees that he casts out devils by Beelzebub, Autumn, 
Teaching in parables, and stilling of the tempest, . ° Autumn, 
Healing of demoniacs in Gergesa, and return to Capernaum, Autumn, 
Matthew’s feast; healing of woman with issue of blood, and 


ee of Jairus’ daughter, . Autumn, 
Healing of two blind men, and a dumb possessed; Pharisees 

blaspheme, . Autumn, 
Second visit to Nazareth; sending of the Twelve, F 3 . Winter, 
Death of Baptist; Jesus returns to Capernaum, Winter, 
Crossing of the sea, and feeding of the 5,000; return to Ca- 

pernaum, f . es 
Discourse at Capernaum respecting the bread of life, 


Jesus visits the coasts of Tyre and Sidon; heals the daughter of 
Syro-Pheenician woman; visits the region of Decapolis; heals 
one with an impediment i in his speech; feeds the 4,000, | Summer, 

Jesus returns to Capernaum, is tempted by the Pharisees; re- 
proves their hypocrisy; again crosses the sea; heals blind 


man at Bethsaida, . é Summer, 
Goes to Jerusalem to Feast of Tabernacles, : . ° 
He teaches in the temple; efforts to arrest Him, Oct., 
An adulteress is brought before Him; attempt to stone Him; 

healing of a man blind from birth: return to Galilee, , Oct., 


Peter's confession that He is the Christ; He announces His 
approaching death and resurrection; ‘the transfiguration, Autumn, 


S88 BY xBR SBERBES BR vee 8 Sarai chan’ ai tetteeen 


EVyxssy Bw Be 


~~ 


J 
ceneess 
Bt PT 


“ 


5 
x 


BSSSRVASLZATE 


BE SE 2 BE S88 8 RBS BSSRRER FB 








CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX. 


Healing of lunatic child, 
Jesus journeys through Galilee, teaching the disciples; ‘at caper. 


naum pays the tribute money, “ . Autumn, 
Final departure from Galilee, - = . . 4 ° Fait. 2) oe 
fs rejected at Samaria, . < = im, SLINOWs, 
Sending of the Seventy, whom he follows, | - = eNO, 


Jesus is attended by great multitudes; parable of the good Samari- 
tan; He gives a form of prayer, . = _ Nev, 
Healing of a dumb possessed man; renewed blasphemy of the 
Pharisees; pa Aa a Pharisee; Jesus rebukes PyDOcrEy 
parable of the rich fool v.—Dec., 
Jesus is told of the murder of the Galileans by Pilate; Joy of 
the fig tree; healing of a woman 18 years sick; is warned 


against Herod, . - Nov.—Dec., 
Feast of Dedication; visit to Mary and Martha: the Jews at Jeru- 
salem attempt to stone Him; He goes beyond Jordan, ay) Ce 


Jesus dines with a Pharisee, and heals a man with dropsy: para- 
bles of the great supper, of the lost sheep, of the lost piece of 
silver, of the unjust steward, of the rich man and Lazarus, Dec. 

Resurrection of Lazarus; counsel of the Jews to put Him to death; 

He retires to Ephraim, “ . _Jan.—Feb., 

Pernt in Ephraim till Passover at hand; journeys on the border 
of Samaria and Galilee; healing of ten lepers; parables of the 
unjust judge, and of Pharisee and publican: teaching respect- 
ing divorce; blessing of children; the young ruler, and parable 
of laborers in the vineyard, . Feb.—March, 

Jesus again announces His death: ambition of James and John, March, 

Healing of blind men at Jericho: "Zaccheus: parable of the pounds; 


departure to Bethany, = March, 
Supper at Bethany, and Bnointing of Jesus. by Mary, ” Sat., April 1, 
Entry into Jerus em; visit to the temple, and return to Bethany, 
Sund., April 2, 
Cursing of the fig tree; second purification of the temple; return 
to thany, -  Mond., April 3, 


Teaching in the temple: parables of the two sons, of the wick 
husbandmen, of the king’s son, attempts of His enemies to 
entangle Him; the poor widow; the Greeks who desire to see 
Him; a voice heard from Heaven; departure from the temple 
to the Mount of Olives: discourse respecting the end of the 
world; return to Bethany; gerecment cl of — with the priests 


to betray Him, - Tues., April 4, 
Jesus seeks retirement at Bethany, Wed., April 5, 
Sending of Peter and soe to prepare the Passover; the paschal 

supper, Thurs., April 6, 
Events at paschal supper, Thurs. eve., April 6, 


After supper Jesus foretells the denials of Peter: speaks of the 
coming of the Comforter, and ends with prayer, 
“Thurs. eve., April 6, 


Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane, . é . Thurs. eve., April 6, 
Jesus is given into the hands of Judas, Thurs., midnight. April 6, 
Jesus is led to the house of Annas, and thence to palace of Caiaphas; 

is condemned for blasphemy, - Friday, 1-5 a. w., April 7, 


Mockeries of His enemies; He is brought the second time before 
the council, and thence taken before Pilate, 
Friday, 5-6 a. m., April 7, 
Charge of sedition; Pilate finds no fault with Him. and attempts 
to release Him, but is fomteal to BeMEr Him, and give Him up 
to be crucified . _ Friday, 6-9 4. a., April 7, 
Jesus is crucified at Go goth . Friday, 9-12 a. mw., April 7, 
Upon the cross is reviled by His enemies; “commends His mother 
to John; ‘darkness covers the land; He dies; the earth shakes 
and rocks are rent, Friday, 12) 4.3 P.M, April 7, 
His body taken down and given tod oseph, and laid in his sepulchre, 
Friday, 3-6 P. m., April 7, 
Resurrection of Jesus, and appearance to Mary Magdalene, 
Sunday a. m., April 9, 
Appearance to the two disciples at Emmaus; to Peter and to the 


Eleven at Jerusalem, . Sunday Pp. m., April 9, 
Appearance to the apostles and Thomas, < Sunday, April 16, 
Appearance to seven disciples at sea of Tiberias, and to 500 at 

mountain in Galilee, 2 - April-May, 


Final appearance to the disciples at Jerusalem, and ascension to 
ReavCIEe a © etn Thursday, May 18, 


8 
le 
9 


88 8B 8 8 B88B 


S$ 8 $8 &8 


S$ $$ 888 88 88 


38 88s 8 8 88 


“ 


649 


8 88 8 8 BRge eR 


410 
414 


416 


B88 


BS §8 


PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE REFERRED TO IN THE HISTORY. 


XXvi. 
XXVi. 
XXvi. 
Xxvi. 
Xxvi. 





Ser seuReRBeegeseseaaneeges 


DSU SUNN ES BERUSERUENENBEUUEEEEE: 








PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE. 651 














. 281 xxii. viii. 
291 xxii. viii. 
286 xxii. ix. 
291 xxii. oe 
.. 295 Xxil. x 
ae Ue xxii. xi. 
. B07 xxii. sal 
320 xxii. xii. 
. 351 xxii. xii. 
359 xxiii. xii. ¢ 
360} = xxiii. xii, 20—36........ 438 
361 xxiii. xiii. Ob Ae erste 481 
ae BEI Set xiii, 386—88........ 494 
. 291) xxiii. XA Va MViley RIV svn nee 494 
885 PRUE OOO Olteilaleretae 563 | xviii. tS neaonae 497 
885 Xxiy. 1—12, 24..... 596 | xviii. 3—12........ 503 
389))|) Fh xxive | 1S—4B Neen. 614) xviii, 13—97........ 5u5 
397) xxiv. 49—53........ 630] xviii. 28—88........ 528 
389 xviii. 39—40........ 529 
390 xix 1—16........ 529 
390 Rix.) | L624 we ness 544 
891 xix, 25—30........ 555 
393 ns 5.2. SIUN AG laa” ee 563 
402 is ex IWS ede 596 
402 ii. SK 119 ee ie 614 
402 ii. Xx, 24--29........ 623 
402 iii. xxi OB reclalaisicte 625 
ab iii. 
410 iii. 
414 iv. ACTS 
416 iv. . 
416 a i. 1—12........ 630 
429 a IO SLO semis oed 
. 436 vi. 
438 vi. 1 CORINTHIANS. 
438 vi. 
438 vii. xv. 5 Sdoconga ale! 





9—138........ 450 vii. xv. 6 Gocmocots er 











= me x. et ee ; aie 
ae ae - . , 


ait 
™ 
% 
° 
3) 
g 
A 


232.9 AS6S 





3092197200 


WU 


souesgr ANssenlun eng 





i 


